 The next item of business is a debate on motion 9406, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on sea fisheries and end-year negotiations. May I ask those who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons, and I call on Fergus Ewing to speak to and move the motion for up to 13 minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Presiding Officer, I am pleased to open this, our annual fisheries debate, by welcoming the broad consensus across this Parliament in support of the motion. We go into the year-end talks with an industry and a sector in root health. The mood on the key side right now is positive and rightly so with a 25 per cent increase in the real-term value of landings in 2016 to £557 million. We must focus on the current needs and interests of the industry, the onshore sector, our coastal communities and marine environment, and build on that success to ensure a good year of sustainable fishing in 2018. Stuart Stevenson, I understand a number of the smaller boats that fish ensure are worried about the increasing costs of licences. Is the Scottish Government aware of that? Is there any way that we can tackle it? Fergus Ewing. Yes, that issue has been raised with me in a number of occasions and in visiting various of the smaller fishermen. I am recommending therefore that, with immediate effect, we shall make shellfish entitlements detachable from parent licences. I am signing off that that will allow smaller vessels who need that entitlement to get access to licences and shellfish entitlements without directly competing against, for example, a big pelagic skipper. I believe that that is of particular importance to local inshore vessels. I know that it has been raised by the western isles by fishermen in the western isles Clyde, Orkney and Fife, and I hope that we will be warmly welcomed by those fishermen. There are, of course, dark Brexit clouds on the horizon, and I am not going to focus too much on the politics of this today, if I may, but rather on the work that we are doing to get the best possible deal for Scottish fishermen. I welcome the Liberal amendment in that regard, acknowledging the uncertainty caused by the prospect and the risk of Brexit for the sector, both offshore and onshore. However, turning to the task in hand, we now have the full set of scientific advice from ICES, which, as usual, shows mixed fortunes. The advice for whitefish in the North Sea is broadly encouraging, with advised increases for arranger stocks, including cod, haddock, whiting saith and monkfish. There is also a positive advice for North Sea prawns. However, the west coast remains more difficult with the fortunes of cod and whiting remaining challenging and a cut advice for west coast prawns. For pelagic stocks, the science advice increases for blue, whiting and North Sea herring, but decreases for mackerel and atlanto-scandian herring, known as ash. One of the Government's key negotiating principles is to follow best scientific advice. Respecting such advice enables us to make decisions and secure outcomes that are responsible, credible and objective, with sustainability at heart. This commitment to sustainability and responsible management is one of the reasons that we need to press forward with effective measures to tackle discards. The Scottish Government remains committed to the ambitious principles behind the landing obligation, namely to reduce waste to improve accountability and to safeguard the sustainability of fishing stocks. 2018 will be the final year of phasing, and the full discard ban will take effect from 2019. To this end, we must endeavour to tackle the issue of choke species. It is essential that the livelihoods of our fishermen are protected. I am absolutely clear that I could not accept any situation in which our fleet is unnecessarily tied to the quayside when there is still quota available to fish. However, there has not yet been sufficient progress at a European level. Existing tools by themselves, which I support the full use of, will not result in a total solution to choke species in some areas. We must urgently explore other solutions. For example, to avoid choke risk, quota distribution must more accurately reflect the distribution and abundance of fish likely to be encountered on the grounds. North Sea hake is a perfect example of this type of mismatch whose distribution has shifted since current quota shares between member states were fixed. Those tools and other tools will be discussed at the forthcoming Brussels negotiations, and I shall be making those points forcibly. This year's talks are, certainly, yes. Mark Ruskell Can I thank the cabinet secretary for giving way? Will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that remote electronic monitoring is an important part of the toolbox that we have? Fergus Ewing Yes, there are many tools, and I accept that monitoring and the use of TVs and so on is increasingly part of the overall approach to sustainable fishing, and, of course, therefore it is appropriate in some cases. This year's talks are now well underway and have already delivered some strong results, including at the coastal states and EU-Norway talks, which together deliver more in economic terms than December council. At the October coastal states talks for macro are a single most valuable stock. Our officials were key in influencing the shape of a new long-term management strategy for the stock. This saw fishing levels aligned with the principles of maximum sustainable yield and constrained the reduction in catching opportunities to 20 per cent in 2018, worth around £130 million to the Scottish industry. Coastal states talks on blue-whiting and ash continue in Copenhagen, and we are working hard to secure agreement, hopefully today, on a full five-party deal that will deliver sustainable and sensible fishing levels for the coming year. Last week's negotiations between the EU and Norway delivered increased catching opportunities for five of the six North Sea stocks that are jointly managed with Norway, with four of those six stocks now being fished at sustainable levels. We also successfully secured a strong additional package of inward North Sea quoted transfers from Norway, aligned with priorities that are identified by our industry. That included increased tonnages of whiting at Norway, others and Norwegian monkfish, compared to last year. For North Sea whiting, the combined effect of a 38 per cent increase on the TAC combined with an additional inward transfer from Norway of 800 tonnes will give a significant increase in quota for whiting stocks. As such, there can now be absolutely no rationale for the UK Government to continue to top-slice Scottish whiting quota for the sole benefit of English vessels, and I expect that to cease immediately. Of course, by their very definition, negotiations involve compromises, so there will inevitably be areas where we are unsuccessful in fully achieving our aims at the EU-Norway talks. EU negotiators have continued to trade away safe quota in both the North Sea and the west of Scotland. That is a significant choke risk stock for Scotland and the North Sea, and we remain firmly opposed in principle to giving away to Norway stocks that we remain short of ourselves. That makes neither economic nor fishing sense and risks putting the industry in a difficult position under the landing obligation. Furthermore, the EU has again retained and overaligned on the use of northern blue whiting as a currency with which to bring in Arctic cod quota from Norway. Within the EU bloc, the UK is the largest shareholder of blue whiting of which Scotland holds over 92 per cent, yet we do not receive a single ton of the Arctic cod coming back in return. Despite those disappointments, I consider that, on balance, the incoming package of North Sea opportunities was stronger than last year and signalled a sufficient enough shift in the dynamics of the exchange with Norway to allow me to accept the deal on the table. The EU pharaoh talks are currently under way. I know that there is particular importance to fishermen in Shetland. That agreement provides essential quota and access opportunities to faroese waters for our whitefish fleet worth around £2 million. In return, faroese vessels may fish a range of quota, including macro in our waters. Although I accept that, I have previously made clear that I cannot accept how the level of faroese access was fixed in 2014 via a private deal done by the commission without any consultation with member states. Members, obviously, in fishing constituencies are only too well aware of that unfairness. I therefore welcome the significant step forward at last year's talks, which put the issue back on the negotiating table. Although I recognise that delivering a reduction from the current 30 per cent access level is going to be very challenging, my officials will continue to pursue that goal during this week's talks. Next week, I and my officials will attend December council to conclude this year's negotiations where quotas for stocks fished solely by the EU fleet will be set. Today, I seek input and views across the chamber, as well as support for our approach. My focus at the council will be to champion the interests of the industry and ensure that Scotland's interests are fully represented by the UK in discussions. In general terms, the best possible outcome entails ensuring that scientific advice is realised as quota and resisting cuts that are not supported by scientific evidence. I will also seek to secure appropriate quota uplifts to support continued implementation of the landing obligation. That includes seeking action on west of Scotland cod to provide the fleet with additional benefit while solutions are developed for resolving the significant choke risk. I will pursue additional inter-area flexibility arrangements that allow the fleet to move quota between different sea areas to address choke risks. Scottish industry will, as normal, be well represented at council, and I will discuss progress with it on a regular basis. The awesome negotiations are complex but vital, and Scottish Government officials are very well respected and listened to for the expertise and knowledge that they bring to the process. I saw that when attending as the head of the Scottish delegation last year in those talks in Brussels. Indeed, my recollection was so proficient and respected and efficacious when the representations were made with the excellent assistance of my officials that we achieved quite extraordinary 24 out of our 26 negotiating aims, which was welcomed by the industry. However, what is straightforward is that the industry and myself, working closely together, shall work tirelessly to deploy all options available to us and deliver the best possible outcomes for our fishing interests and, indeed, our marine environment, enabling our industry, communities and economy to benefit from continued sustainable growth in 2018. I move the motion in my name. I call Peter Chapman to speak to you and move amendment 9406.2. I update minutes, please, Mr Chapman. I am glad to be leading off this debate for the Scottish Conservatives today. And since the Brexit vote in June 2016, the fishing industry has been extremely positive about the challenges and the opportunities that they face. It has been a pleasure to work with them over the past year and it is a privilege to speak on their behalf in this debate today. The past 18 months have been good for our fishermen. Landings are up and prices are good. There are record numbers of new boats being built and the mood is buoyant. Peterhead Port has invested over £50 million in the last year, deepening the harbour and building a new, bigger fish market. Likewise, there has been considerable investments in harbour facilities in Shetland to facilitate increased landings there. However, the fish processing sector has seen a decrease in capacity. From 2008 to 2016, there has been a 34 per cent decline in processing capacity in north-east Scotland. We are losing business and jobs to Humberside, where fish processing is growing. We appear to be uncompetitive due, in large measure, to large increases in business rates. We need to reverse that trend to handle the extra fish that Brexit will bring. Codd are a great example of how stocks have improved over the past 10 years. In 2006, Scottish Codd stocks had fallen to 44,000 tonnes from a high of 270,000 tonnes in the 1970s. However, through a combined effort by our fishermen in using innovative technology and gear and restricting our fishing effort, our Codd stocks rose to a level of 149,000 tonnes last year. That is good news and a step towards a long and prosperous future. If anyone mistakenly thinks that the EU or the CFP can take credit for any of this increase, just take a look at the dire state of fish stocks in the Mediterranean and the Adriatic Seas. Good stocks so last week's bipartisan EU-Norway stocks award increased quotas for five out of the six North Sea stocks. That included increases of 38 per cent for whiting, 25 per cent for herring, 24 per cent for haddock and 10 per cent for codd. Although those increases have been agreed, it is that the annual council of fisheries ministers talks, which take place next week, where EU member states divide up fishing quotas for the year ahead. Although there has been an increase in stocks, there are serious concerns with regard to choked species. Without major uplifts in the quotas for codd and hake, for instance, in next week's meeting, there is a real fear industry-wide that landing obligations will lead to restrictions on fishing. I argue that, if those problems occur, the Government must be prepared to act beyond the existing tools of article 15 of the basic regulation. That has already happened with Daven Flounder being removed from TSCs on the quota regulation. It is important that we recognise today that the upcoming end-year negotiations will be the last negotiations in which the UK has awarded quotas from the EU for a full year. As in April 2019, the UK will cease its membership of the EU and will be out of the CFP. We all know that the fishing industry overwhelmingly voted to leave the EU, as membership of it and the CFP has been little short of disastrous. The UK only catches 40 per cent of the fish that is only attached to our EEZ, norway catches 80 per cent, as Iceland catches 90 per cent. That shows the size of the prize that is up for grabs. We must start to redress this unfair situation. We must listen to the industry and we should consider a nine-month bridging arrangement. The industry does not want and we do not need a two-year transition period for fishing. This time next year, at the council of ministers talks, the UK will be in a unique position. The negotiation must recognise that three months on from the December 2018 talks in March 2019, we will be out of the CFP and an independent coastal state with control of and responsibility for our EEZ out to 200 miles. Therefore, we must start to redress the balance of the quota of shares at that point, that is December 2018, and then allow those agreed shares to run from March for the next nine months until December 2019, when the UK takes its place at the top table alongside Norway, Iceland, the pharaohs and the EU. This is the nine-month bridge that the industry is arguing for and which I hope that the cabinet secretary will get behind. Once the UK has achieved coastal state status, the UK can then make clear its intention to seek adjustment to existing fixed shares. The UK would work with others to create new fixed shares based on objective criteria, with zonal attachment being the fairest indicator. Stuart Stevenson, is the member telling us that we can only retrieve those parts of the fishery out to 200 miles that are done by other states with their permission? He seems to be indicating that rather than, as the fishing industry tells me, it expects, on the day that we leave the CFP, that we control 100 per cent of the fishing out to 200 miles. He is suggesting that the rights of those who are currently fishing in our waters will continue. That is what I heard. That is not what I said. We will control the fish out to 200 miles. That is quite correct, but we will also work with our partners. Nobody is saying that on day one, on March 19, the shutters will come down and another boat will never fish in our seas. Nobody has ever said that. With zonal attachment being the fairest indicator, an Aberdeen University study suggests that significant gains for Scotland based on zonal attachment can be delivered for key commercial species. That is a model that the SFF is working to achieve. I believe that it is being closely studied at Westminster as well. It has merit, it is pragmatic and it is a fair way forward, because we must work collaboratively with our EU neighbours who would continue to have access to our waters but with lower catching levels. They would operate under our controls and our rules and regulations, just as happens right now when our boats fish in Norwegian waters. What we must not do is swap access to our seas for access to EU markets. The other big prize once we leave the EU will be our ability to set the rules and regulations governing our fleet. We need a regime that is fair, sustainable in the long term, respects the environment and keeps our fishermen fishing. I believe that we can design a better way to manage our fish stocks. That is an important debate. It has allowed me to outline a possible way through the Brexit negotiations for our fishing industry. We can deliver a vibrant future for our fishing industry and our towns and villages around the coast, which are dependent on fish for their future prosperity. We aim to realise the sea of opportunity that is within our grasp. For the last 40 years, oil has been a huge boost to the economy of the north-east of Scotland, but we must never forget that fishing and farming was the mainstay of the north-east economy long before oil was discovered, and both those primary industries will still be important long after the last drop of oil has been pumped from the North Sea. I move amendment 9406.1. I feel a sense of the end of an era. Some of us have been here, Lewis Macdonald and others from the early days of the fishing debates. It is one of those moments when we might wonder whether we will pine for the language of the common fisheries policy, the common access to a common resource, relative stability or indeed the Hague preference. I seem to recall Mr Finnie being asked by Mr Salmond of that very first fishing debate whether he'd invoked the Hague preference. As Ross Finnie said to us after he knew that was a question that was going to be asked, he went away and did his homework before the debate to find out what the heck the Hague preference was, but heaven help any fisheries minister who doesn't know what the Hague preference is. In future, Mr Ewing, you may not need to know it because it may have no bearing on the future whatsoever. It will all be gone. Whatever happens in future, the common fisheries policy will be gone. It's never been common, it's never been a policy, it's not worked for fishing communities not just here in Scotland but right across the coastal states of the EU, on that I entirely agree with Peter Chapman. I want to make just two points today. The first is about the reality of the industry now. We are not really debating in detail the catch-quater set for monks, for haddock or for cod set at the recent EU Norway annual negotiations. This is not a huge fight today about days at sea or, indeed, the discard ban. Yes, as the minister and Peter Chapman have said, there are problems, and Marine Scotland, of course, needs to work with industry to sort those out, and choked species is the main one of that. However, nothing compares to the high drama and dark days of decommissioning and the financial losses by boats affecting families in every fishing community around the coast of Scotland. Broadly, as the minister rightly said, stocks, science and fishing effort are in reasonable balance. The seas that we have responsibility for appear healthy. Science says so. The second point that I want to make is that the Government wants to double the size of the food and drink industry by 2030, and seafood will and has a significant role to play in that objective. Shetland's fish landings have grown from 300,000 boxes in 2015 to over 400,000 this year. 33 million pounds of white fish alone will be landed in the aisles this year. 21 containers of fresh seafood are on the boat every night from Lerwick down to Aberdeen and on to market. There are two issues that I have asked the cabinet secretary to consider. First, ensuring that there is enough shipping capacity as the industry landings grow. If Shetland cannot get fish on the boat, we cannot play our part in meeting the Government's export target. Secondly, concluding the ferry freight fair's review, putting up freight charges by 2.9 per cent, as the Government has done, is not helping the industry's competitiveness nor is it consistent with other Government policies, notably the food and drink strategy. I know that Seafood Shetland has written to the cabinet secretary this week, and they would greatly appreciate his assistance on those matters. To export and expand, to genuinely harvest the sea of opportunity means access to market. That, Presiding Officer, is the reason for my amendment this afternoon. Bertie Armstrong's Scottish Fisherman's Federation briefing paper today is accurate in many respects. Bertie writes that, with trade talks imminent, we must achieve the best and most free access to all markets, including the EU. That is absolutely right, Presiding Officer. Much of Shetland's catch and, indeed, much of the catch in the ports of Scotland is destined for the European market. We can argue, of course, about weight, volume, the value and the statistics that go with that, but fishing depends on selling fish to Europe. Europeans eat simply more fish than we do, so we need a deal out of Brexit that makes sense not just for the car industry or financial services but for fishing, too. Yet, this week, as we debate this industry, we find out two facts. Firstly, on trade, the UK cabinet has not even discussed the shape of a trade deal that it wants to achieve. Secondly, there is no impact assessment of fishing. Never mind, the rest of the economy has been carried out. That is a dereliction of duty by any Government, yet we are almost in 2018. We are months away from the UK Government's timetable of leaving the EU in March 2019, yet the UK cabinet has not discussed trade nor do we know what any of this would actually mean for our economy. The message for our industry is simply clear. Do not depend on the UK Government to defend your interests. Sadly, the only party that they are defending is the DUP. That is because the DUP is keeping the Tories in office, but not sadly in power. The other reason that I worry for fishing is that the speech that the UK fisheries minister Michael Gove, a member of the UK cabinet and a leading Brexiteer gave to a meeting of Danish fishermen on 31 July as reported by the Financial Times, assured the Danish food industry that their fishermen would, and I quote, still be able to catch large amounts in UK seas. If ever there was an illustration of the need for our industry to be on our guard, it was this. Gove is a highly intelligent individual. He did not misspeak. He meant it. What he was really saying is that the fishing industry is part of the overall negotiations. It does not stand outside those negotiations. As many old hands on the key side from Larwick to Anstrother remember, what happened in the 70s when the Tories went into Europe? I therefore urge my good friends in the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and at home in the Shrefflin Fishermen's Association to hold the UK Government's feet very firmly to the fire. Mr Gove has opened up what many of us feared on day one of Brexit, a Danish or a Dutch veto of the fishing part of Brexit in their own national interests. It is not just the UK that has national interests. The Dutch and the Danes in fishing most certainly do too. The industry is highly significant in economic terms to both countries. Just as in Ireland, who are currently holding a veto over number 10 and rightly so, it is all too easy to envisage the same from the Danes or the Dutch over access to UK parts of the North Sea. I believe that the SFF's advocacy of a nine-month bridge after March 2019 rather makes sense. It makes intellectual sense. The question is whether it makes political sense. It is a way forward. It certainly is, but it will need support as part of those Brexit negotiations. It will need support here and in London. As an approach to the future management of our seas, it will need to be sensibly explained to other coastal states and the EU. Who, Presiding Officer, is doing that? I rather doubt that it has got to the top of David Davis's inbox, and Michael Gove seems more interested in being chancellor than fisheries secretary. That is a tough period in assessing the next steps, but Bertie Armstrong and the SFF are quite right to set out a plan across a nautical chart. It is now a question of how that chart is navigated across a very stormy political sea. In that spirit, I move the amendment in my name. The debate is an annual event ahead of the fisheries negotiations with the European Union. The Norwegian talks have concluded at the weekend that have been reasonably successful on this augurs well for the forthcoming talks with the EU. It is also a good backdrop to the talks that the fishing industry is doing well. Fish stocks have recovered and there is plenty fish to catch. Fishing is also more profitable because of the weak pound, and it means that exports of fish are bringing home more pounds. It is an old wind, as it says. It feels like a long time since the fishing industry was in such buoyant mood. We should not forget that painful decisions were taken in the past and there was real hardship in the industry at that time. However, it looks like that has paid off. The lesson that we must learn from that is that we take fish stocks for granted at our peril. We must firm the seas and tend them to ensure that we never face cliff edges of the past again. Whether inside or outside the EU, those discussions and control of stocks have to be taken alongside our neighbours, as fish respect no borders. It is only if we work together that we will ensure healthy stocks in the future. Those talks could well be our last as full members of the common fisheries policy for the full term of the negotiating period. The next negotiations will be for the year that we are due to leave the European Union. Hopefully the parameters for post-Brexit discussions about fisheries management will be in place by then, so those talks can be meaningful. With our fishing industry so buoyant, it will be a good time to take stock and plan strategically for the future. Where will our European exports enter into Europe? How will we ensure the least possible delays for fresh seafood if we are not in a customs union? Are there new markets that we should be exploring and targeting? The European Union is currently the world's largest single fisheries market. In 2015, the UK exported over £900 million of fish and fish products to the European Union. That is almost 70 per cent of the total UK exports for the sector. If Scotland is to continue to trade effectively with this market, it is vital that our seafood industry meets EU standards at least if not improve on those. We have led the way in the past and we should be able to continue to do so in the future. For the protection of our island's fishing industry, we need to ensure that freight costs are island-proof and that there is sufficient freight transport available. It would not matter how big the catch we have if we cannot get it to market. Tavish Scott mentioned in his speech that this is a looming problem in Shetland regarding capacity. It is one that must be addressed now so that we are ready for the future. For those negotiations, the main issue that needs to be dealt with is the landing obligation and choke species. Although the landing obligation is going well currently, it will become more difficult when it extends to species in a mixed fishery. To ensure that boats do not flight it, the regime has to be workable. It should not lead to boats being tied up for prolonged periods of time because they cannot fish due to a lack of quota for choke species. There surely must be a way of ensuring that all fish caught are landed while also making it unattractive to target choke species that are at or beyond their allowed quota. Let us be clear what happened before the landing obligation was in place when fish were caught, when that boat did not have quota, went back over the side dead, cannot happen again. That did nothing to conserve fish, they were already dead. Such waste is immoral when so many people go without enough food, neither does it conserve stocks because fish are already dead when they return to the sea. At best, discards provide an easy meal for seabirds and other predators but they do nothing for over quota species or indeed the environment. However, if illicit fishing does occur, the result will be an accounted for mortality, which will undermine the confidence in stock assessments and in turn the quotas themselves. That will result in overfishing and a decline in stock within knock-on negative impacts on the fishery. We need a workable landing obligation policy, not that one that would stop fishermen working and would therefore cause hardship, both not just to those at sea but to processors on land. We need a policy that would allow bycatch to be landed and used, which would neither punish nor reward the boats that had inadvertently caught the fish. Landing it should not prove profitable. There is, of course, a risk that it would not be profitable, especially if that species was in short supply and there was a high customer demand. There must be a way of allowing the boat enough profit to land it, but not enough profit to make it attractive to target. That way it is not wasted. We must also invest in science and technology to find ways of fishing more selectively in a mixed fishery. It allows effort therefore to be much more targeted. Technology is advancing to enable gear to fish in a more selective way, but it needs much more investment to help to avoid choke species altogether, which is obviously the best option for us all. Those debates happen every year, but they are important as ever this year despite Brexit. Our coastal communities are vulnerable and need a stable industry for their survival. It is not just the crews and the boats that depend on the industry. It is the processors and the workers onshore that do too. We obviously want the very best deal for our fishing industry. We all want a deal that ensures that stocks are protected for the future generations and that current generations can make a living and that we can all have fish to eat. We now move to the open debate and its speeches of six minutes, please. Stuart Stevenson, followed by Liam Kerr. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Not every MSP attends the fishing debate. My first speech in Parliament in June 2001 was in the subject of fishing, just as my subject of fishing is on 716 today. Fishing, however, and its products touches us all. Only yesterday, the lead item on the menu in the Scottish Parliament canteen was Peterhead smoked haddock fishcake, an absolutely delicious—I see the Presiding Officer nodding—absolutely delicious. It was. It is not an abstract issue. It is one that touches our palate, our stomach, our very being. It sustains and supports our population and our health. Speaking of health, the fishing industry is in pretty good heart. It is looking forward to the sea of opportunity that the catch-phrase, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, has come up with for the opportunities that come from leaving the CFP. For my part, I have always been opposed to the common fisheries policy. My political colleague Donald Stewart MP, his speeches in the Westminster Parliament right from the outset of the UK going into the EEC until he submitted office, are testament to his long-standing opposition as the member for the Western Isles to the CFP. Alan McCartney, a wonderful member of the European Parliament, wrote an excellent paper on what should be a successor plan to the CFP some 20 years ago before his early death in office. It is worth getting out and having another read, because we are now thinking in terms of what next. This year's negotiation is the very last year of the complete year before Brexit. We have to keep an eye on the prize that the fishermen expect to come in 2019. I can understand in tactical terms Mr Gove going and speaking to the Danes and indeed to the Dutch as he has done. Together with some of the comments from Peter Chapman today, we are seeing the Tories giving away for no obvious benefit that we are hearing about the prize that is there from the sea of opportunity. Mr Chapman, in his response to my intervention on the subject, provided no meaningful answer to that subject. We have to get 100 per cent control over our waters out to 200 miles. I welcome the perhaps more than a hint that the London Convention will be abandoned, because that helps us between six and 12 miles, although I am not absolutely sure that that particular one is nailed down. Unless and until we get that control, we really do not have the opportunity to map a way forward. In that context, of course, we are looking at what Westminster is doing on the EU leaving the EU bill or the great reform bill or whatever you choose to call it. The SFF is absolutely clear that the powers in relation to fishing must come straight to Hollywood because they fear quite reasonably that they may not get the kind of solutions to their needs if we rely simply on London. There is a reason for that and it is not a reason that I criticise. English fishing interests are mostly interesting in controlling how much we catch by restriction of effort rather than by quota, whereas the Scottish fishing industry has a different approach that it wishes to see, and that is a quota-based approach rather than one restriction of effort. We went through a period in the CFP where we were both, and it was absolutely horrendous. We would have clarity if we made the decisions in Scotland. We set the strategic objectives and take control of our waters. That is a very simple understanding of where the Scottish fishermen's federations want to be. How optimistic are the fishing industry? Well, there are new boats being built all over the place. The new fish market in Peterhead will open next year, which Peter Chapman referred to. I met with the Harbour Authority on Friday and had an update on that. Of course, this very week, we had the EMFF and the Scottish Government providing funding for a factory to take over a facility in Fraserborough previously occupied by Young's Seafood. There truly is a sea of opportunity out there. Science is important to how we take decisions in fishing, and there is no division among any of us on that. ISIS is the key place from which scientific opinion and understanding comes. It is, of course, unaffected by Brexit, because ISIS has been around for more than 100 years, telling us how long the fishing industry, who are really the arch-conservationists at heart, if not necessarily every individual, and we will continue to participate in ISIS. However, will the Scottish contribution to the scientific work be damaged by Brexit in the sense that we have quite a lot of people working on our science who may not readily have the right of residency here for the long term? Peter Chapman said that he speaks on behalf of the industry. I think that the industry speaks on behalf of the industry. We are all here to support the industry. I do not know whether Peter has been elected as a representative of any particular part of the industry, but the important thing is that we are all united and we will be at decision time around a shared position that promotes the interests of our industry and ensures that we can exploit the sea of opportunity and seize success in fishing communities across Scotland. Can I remind members to use full names when referring to other members in the chamber? I call Liam Kerr to be followed by Emma Harper. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Here we are again, the annual series of by-tri and multilateral summits that determine next year's fishing quotas for EU, Norwegian, Faroese and Icelandic fishing fleets. We await the lobbyists, the politicians, the commissioners, the council officials, European Parliament staffers and journalists at the annual two-day, all-night, bun-fight at the Barleyamon, emerging exhausted, waving the various deals and agreements that they have wrestled over. It is, of course, in the main affront. The summit is, for the British fleet at least, a rubber stamping exercise, with the major deals having been agreed with little fanfare. Such as for our North Sea fleets, where big decisions were taken last week at the EU Norway summit, with deals struck over cod, haddock, biting and herring. The December Council is fundamentally the division of the EU's portion, which was decided at the coastal states arrangements. It is that that is concerning, because, of course, currently fishing quotas are allocated to the UK as part of the EU's common fishery policy, with individual UK countries having devolved responsibility over their share of the UK quotas. However, that is the final time. This time next year, we will be about four months away from being a coastal state at the table negotiating for ourselves. That is good news, because currently each year, non-UK European fishing, European Union fishing boats land on average 700,000 tonnes of fish and shellfish, worth almost 530 million from the UK exclusive economic zone. Non-UK EU fishing boats therefore landed almost eight times more fish and shellfish by weight from the UK EEZ than UK boats did from other areas of the EU EEZ. Brexit is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity as it involves a systemic change in the restoration of the UK's exclusive economic zone. That gives the country the potential to become a world leader in seafood production and exports. That is not to say isolation, of course. The UK will still need to co-operate with the EU after Brexit on quota setting. Co-operation on shared stocks is required. As many fish stocks, as was pointed out earlier, are migratory and cross those boundaries. Such co-operation is currently seen in Norway and other non-EU European countries. Such co-operation is enshrined in international law. The UN agreement on straddling fixed stocks and highly migratory fish stocks and the UN convention on the law of the sea require co-operation on the conservation and management of fish stocks. The UK has ratified those agreements. That leads me to the motion's call for the best outcome for our fishermen, because they work to give themselves that best outcome. Our fishing industry is innovative and hard-working and has been at the forefront of pioneering new nets to reduce discarding practices, the voluntary use of CCTV monitoring on boats and an on-board observer scheme. I have been struck a number of times when actually on-board fishing vessels in Peterhead and Stonehaven by how fishermen are among the country's best examples of entrepreneurs. Super trollers of more than 70 metres with yards of flat digital monitors and on-suite rooms cost £20 million. Family businesses with shareholder crews. Macro fishermen who foresaw that pelagic fish would be worth something, invested and now, as the cabinet secretary pointed out earlier, is the biggest value species not only in the UK but in the whole of the EU. It is a locally driven investment that benefits the industry, the locality and the local supply chain. That is why I commend the motion and the Scottish Conservative amendment in calling for support for our innovative, pioneering and hard-working fishing industry. I am very grateful that Mr Chapman did not lay out the reasons for the specific detail of the Conservative amendment in his opening speech, and I wonder if he might not like it. Liam Kerr, I thank Mr MacDonald for that. It is just very briefly to narrow down the specific political issues that could be raised by others within the motion if it were not made clear that that should not be a consideration. Someone was not listening. You can read it back on the official record, Stuart Stevenson. It is an industry that includes fish processing. I want to pick up a point made by Peter Chapman when he talked of fish processing, which draws in the motion's mention of the wider sector. Scottish processors conduct primary and secondary processing, with many factories carrying out a mix of both types. However, Peter Chapman rightly highlighted serious challenges. There has been a 34 per cent decline in processing sites since 2008, more marked in Scotland than in England. Seafood-related employment fell in the north-east of Scotland by 4 per cent, while in Humberside there was an increase of 7 per cent. Why is that declined? A number of reasons have been suggested, such as high operating costs and challenges to attract investment, a low-margin industry competing in a global market, and business rates that have disproportionately impacted the north-east. At the CPG on fisheries, industry expert Jimmy Buckin put together some suggestions principally around business rates relief and innovative changes, many of which merit further consideration. We are pleased to back the motion, calling for the best possible deal from the fishing negotiations. We very much support the Scottish Government in its efforts to achieve the best possible outcome for the fishermen, coastal communities and wider seafood sectors. We recognise that the motion seeks to recognise the real opportunity of sustained economic benefit for our coastal communities and seafood sectors. However, such benefits can only happen if Parliamentarians from all parts of the political 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 hope all in this chamber are eternally grateful. I say to members that there is time in hand for interventions, preferably not from a sedentary position. I call Emma Harper to be followed by Claudia Beamish, please. Before continuing, I would like to remind members that I am the parliamentary liaison officer for the cabinet secretary. I welcome the Scottish Government's motion and commend the cabinet secretary's constructive involvement in recent negotiations. Scotland secured a number of its objectives and negotiations between the EU and Norway concluded. There will be a quota increases for five of the six North Sea stocks that are jointly managed with Norway, increasing catching opportunities for Scotland's fishing industry and delivering more in economic terms for Scotland. I know that the Scottish Government will fight hard 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. Vitally, we will be guided by the science and respect stock sustainability while maximising fishing opportunities. The EU plays a key role for the Scottish fishermen by setting the annual total allowable catches for all quota-regulated species and for all European Union fishing fleets. That is always a complex negotiation and, given Scotland's majority interest in UK fishing, the Scottish Government plays a prominent role in promoting our fishing priorities in Brussels annually. While the common fisheries policy has been cumbersome on the fishing industry, membership of the European Union has brought benefits and the prospect of Scotland being taken out of the EU is very real and has implications for the industry, which I would like to discuss today. The EU is the largest overseas market for Scotland's seafood exports, and the UK Government's pursuit of a hard Brexit would likely create huge barriers to trade with vital European markets. In the south of Scotland, fishing is a key industry. The region's harbours and many directly related onshore jobs depend on the industry, as well as other local livelihoods that are not directly connected, such as the food and drink sector. Inshore fisheries in thriving towns such as Curcwbry could be financially impacted by non-tariff barriers after Brexit. For example, if trade barriers delay the process of exporting food such as shellfish past a certain time of day, the price can drop as much as 50 per cent. In the absence of a trade deal with the EU, a switch to the default world trade organisation tariff arrangements could lead to EU tariffs averaging between 7 per cent and 13 per cent, being imposed on Scottish seafood exports to the UK. Of course, I will take an intervention. I thank the member for taking the intervention. Just very briefly, does she recognise that 10 of the top 20 export countries for UK fish are currently out with the European Union? Emma Harper Yes, but the EU is the biggest market. I should say thank you for that intervention, but the EU is still the biggest market that we have, so although there are countries out with the EU, we should not negate other opportunities as we proceed. James Withers, the chief executive of Scotland's Food and Drink, has described such a no-deal scenario as a disaster. In the absence of full EU membership, Scotland's interests would best be protected by remaining in the single market and customs union. Leaked draft plans for the Irish border last week showed that British and Irish officials agreed proposals that would effectively keep Northern Ireland in both the single market and the customs union after Brexit by retaining EU regulations. If one part of the UK can retain regulatory alignment with the EU and effectively stay in the single market, there is surely no good practical reason why others cannot. It is of vital importance to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the powers to fully manage Scottish fisheries after Brexit. That will ensure that fisheries management in Scottish waters reflects the interests of the Scottish industry and fishing communities and is sensitive to the Scottish marine environment. That is a position that is supported by the Scottish Fish and Federation, which have expressed deep concern about clause 11 in the EU withdrawal bill, which will allow Westminster to retain powers currently held by the EU. That includes the operable elements of the common fisheries policy, which the UK Government has indicated it intends to roll forward and will become subject to the decisions of the UK Government after exit day, not the Scottish Government. In its submission to the finance committee earlier this year, the SFF stated that this approach will dramatically limit Scotland's ability to deliver effective reactive fisheries management. That is not an outcome that the industry wants to see. I look forward to Theresa May beginning to engage fully with our First Minister in an attempt to give us some much-needed certainty over the legislative landscape for the industry as we look post-Brexit. I know that the Scottish Government will continue to do all it can to protect Scotland's interests and ensure that devolved functions continue to function fully and effectively. Scotland is strategically placed to have the best fishing industry in Europe, and the SNP is committed to doing it all it can to make that a reality. I call Claudia Beamish to be followed by Mark Ruskell. 2018 will indeed be a complex year for our fisheries. Whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, our ambition to supply high-quality seafood with high-quality environmental standards must never waver. The cabinet secretary is right to look in the Scottish Government motion at the best possible outcome for Scotland's fishermen, coastal communities and wider seafood sectors. He also recognises that a healthy environment in our marine world is vital for the prosperity of them all. Although it has had many critics, the common fisheries policy has anchored sustainability into EU-wide fisheries management. Whatever the future holds, any new trading relationships should enhance that. There will also this coming year be a UK fisheries bill, and we hope that there will be proper liaison with Westminster colleagues about the issues that affect Scotland and, indeed, the whole of the UK. There will, of course, be scrutiny as this develops. I would like to thank all those who have provided briefings for today from a range of perspectives for this debate, including, of course, SFF and the newly formed charity Open Seas. Scottish Labour is clear that responsibility for our fisheries should revert to Scotland after leaving the EU. There are, indeed, colossal challenges. We need to support the wide-ranging industry while underpinning that support with a continuing robust commitment to protection and, I stress, enhancement of our marine environment, on which some good progress has already been made. Together we must forge a sustainable way forward for our fisheries sectors, our marine environment that gives us such plenty for now and for the future, as Rhoda Grant has highlighted. Of course, we will still be subject to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which demands quotas and sustainable management. I welcome the cabinet secretary's words on scientific advice in this debate's motion. The sharing of knowledge and research is one of the greatest tenets of the EU, and it is a great shame that our involvement in the EU-wide data exchange remains uncertain at this stage, although I know what Stuart Stevenson has said about ISIS being very important. I want to highlight the European Marine Fisheries Fund. It has made a significant contribution to our coastal communities and maritime sector, as well as Marine Scotland's expenditure on science, data and compliance. It is concerning to learn that there will no longer be an assurance that this can be protected after Brexit. Can the cabinet secretary acknowledge in his closing remarks the significance of the support that this fund has provided and inform the chamber of any discussions about the need for future funding of this nature and how that may happen? Climate change, in my brief, is a major threat to our marine ecosystems, and scientific advice will become increasingly vital to support a sustainable fisheries industry in warming seas. The Scottish Association of Marine Science has predicted that global warming can cause cod, herring and haddock—all commercially important species here in Scotland—to vanish from our west coast by the turn of the century, unless more is done. Affect of this kind can be felt very heavily as cod and haddock are now being caught far further north near Iceland and sold back to the UK to satisfy consumer demands. I welcome comment from the cabinet secretary on how those changing ecosystems and shifting species are being accounted for and discussed in quotes and negotiations, as those lie alongside the pressing issues of choked species and other matters in this year's negotiations. I hope that the cabinet secretary has noted my colleague Rhoda Grant's points on the choked species. I commend the fishing fleets for their adaptation to the landing obligation and the steps that are taken for self-regulation thus far. Marine Scotland is working to make compliance as easy as possible for fishermen and are experimenting with technologies, but this support is reliable on Marine Scotland's resources, and that, indeed, we must be sure, is supported. Plastic pollution in our marine environment has become one of the most compelling environmental issues of our day, not just thanks to Sir David Attenborough's Blue Planet but also to the Marine Conservation Society and the work of many environmental groups. What people may not know is the impressive work of Fishing for Litter, the project that engages the fishing industry, local communities and schools, and since 2005, the project has landed over 1,102 tonnes of plastic litter in 18 ports, including in my region of South Scotland. While humans absorb fewer than 1 per cent of plastic fragments, the effect is cumulative. Around the world, of course, people have an interest in our exports and our famous fish and shellfish produce, and many are working to sustain that reputation. I would be interested to know if that is an issue that the Scottish Government will be raising in this year's negotiations. Finally, to focus again on Brexit, our significant seafood processing sector must continue to be supported. In Dumfries and Galloway, the fishing and seafood sector plays a significant role in the local economy, as it does across Scotland. From fishing out of Cacubrie to processing in Anand, it contributes more than £20 million and provides employment for some 1,000 people. Indeed, in just one town in Anand, over 120 people are employed at Young's. For 70 years, it has been the biggest scampi selling place in Scotland, and just around the corner pinnies of Scotland, now owned by Young's, employs 200 people in fish processing. Much of that work can be seasonal. I highlight that to the cabinet secretary today, which I know that he is keenly aware of. Some of them are not seasonal, though, but are people who have bought their families here and are part of our Scottish world. It is very important that we protect both those ways of working. I do wish the cabinet secretary well again in this year's negotiations on behalf of Scottish labour and, I am sure, from across the chamber and from the fishing industry itself. We look forward to hearing positive results. I also wish good luck to the cabinet secretary in the forthcoming December talks. It is always a culmination of a long and very involved stakeholder process across Europe. Having spent a brief spell as a member of the North West Water Regional Advisory Council, I recognise the toil involved in pouring over stock assessments in windowless Brussels meeting rooms for many, many months. We do not know what the arrangements will be around bilateral and multilateral agreements going forward post 2019. We also do not know what the common UK frameworks will emerge from the UK Fisheries Bill, but whatever machinery of negotiation we end up with, the hard-won principles around sustainability must endure post-Brexit. It is absolutely clear that nature demands that we do not fish beyond the capacity of a species to reproduce itself, which is why the principle of maximum sustainable yield needs to be embedded. Alongside that, the key European principle of a precautionary approach must be retained. To hold back from levels of fishing effort that could tip stocks into serious decline is essential. Stock recovery plans will always cause pain to fishers. Preventing collapse through precautionary action is the best course up front. In relation to this year's negotiations, can I ask the cabinet secretary whether he will be pushing for the science to be followed on all stocks to meet our MSY 2020 obligations? If he does not support the advice on some stocks, then the interest of transparency needs to set out in more detail than he has today the reasons for not doing so. We have turned the corner with overfishing in the EU, and a number of members have reflected on that. Just a few years ago, nearly three quarters of stocks were being dangerously fished out, whereas less than half are today, but there is still a long way to go. A commitment is needed to ensure that scientific advice and limits are reflected in fishing practice on the water. Discarded fish may not contribute to business balance sheets, but they have a big impact on ecology, so a discarding ban needs to be enforced. Elisabeth Discarding also undermines the various stock assessments that fishers, conservationists and Governments need confidence in to make the right decisions, leading to a downward spiral of overfishing and further declines in stock health. I think a point that Rhoda Grant has already reflected on. Eliminating discards on the six key whitefish species clearly would add economic benefit, with estimates showing additional value of landings in Scotland could bring in an extra £28 million a year by 2020. Developing selective gear and techniques to avoid non-target species is worth investing in, and Scotland has a good track record in leading those conservation approaches over many years. However, we should now also be leading the way in monitoring, and at present, less than 1 per cent of fishing activities are monitored at sea. That is going to change, obviously. Scotland has the opportunity to lead that race to the top in verifying the quality and sustainability of our produce through remote electronic monitoring cameras on our boats. I note the cabinet secretary's response to my question. I would like to know in closing whether the cabinet secretary would support remote electronic monitoring on all boats over 10 metres long. That data that we can gather through electronic monitoring, will not only ensure that we make the best use of limited budgets for compliance, it will also help to deliver some of the science needed for more accurate stock assessments that benefits everyone, including the industry. The science also tells us where key habitats and species thrive and how we can save and enhance them through marine protected areas. By enhancing spawning grounds, we protect the parts that lead to greater productivity and resilience overall, which is essential in an age of real and growing threats from climate change. Some boldness is needed from the Scottish Government in completing the NPA network set out by SNH three years ago. I would like to briefly turn to the post Brexit picture, and we have heard many contributions already in this debate. The fishing lobby in Scotland and the UK want to take back control of the exclusive economic areas that the UK sees, and unpick fishing rights held by other countries, some of which, of course, predate our entry to the European Union. The question is at what cost and will that actually result in any more fish being landed? The UN laws of the sea require states to allow access to surplus fishing quota based on historic use, and it is unlikely that the EU would want to strike a deal with the UK without preserving some access to those historic catches. However, if the UK ignored that, what about the impact on trade? We are in a position, and we have heard from many members already, where the vast majority of what is caught in our waters is sold to Europe, while the tastes of our own domestic markets rely heavily on the nets of Greenland, Iceland and Norway. Therefore, on raveling and separating access to markets and fishing areas would be highly problematic. If the UK just decided to walk away from deals, that could be absolutely disastrous, leading parties to ignore the science completely and go back to the unsustainable levels of catch that we saw during the macro wars, alongside all the sanctions and prohibitions that that brought. That is why we need to debate on both fisheries and agriculture about what the public interest is and what public goods those sectors deliver. What replaces the European Marine Fisheries Fund in a post-Brexit UK's fishery policy remains to be seen. However, to deliver public goods, it must be focused on science and technological innovation to deliver healthy stocks and an industry that serves the needs of communities, rather than a small handful of quota barons. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It has been sometimes as I took part in a fisheries debate in this place, which is probably at the end of session 4, so I am pleased to be contributing today. Even though there is a feeling of deja vu, some members still start their speeches with Here We Are Again. Being a fan of all things Nordic, I was certainly pleased to see the relative success of the EU-Norway deal following negotiations last week. I bring some additional success with Scotland securing a number of its negotiation objectives when fisheries talks between the EU and Norway concluded in Bergen. Of course, as the cabinet secretary mentioned, the coastal state negotiations continue as the Faroe Islands, as we speak. As a result of the negotiations in Bergen, there has been a welcome quota increase for five of the six North Sea stocks that are jointly managed with Norway, including 38 per cent for Whiting, 25 per cent for Herring, 24 per cent for Herrick and 10 per cent for Cod. Cod, Herrick, Seith and Herring will be pushed at sustainable or MSY levels in 2018, with Whiting on a craly-defined path towards MSY by 2020. However, there was disappointment that the EU's negotiators have continued to trade away Seith quota in both the North Sea and the west of Scotland. That is a significant choke-risk stock for Scotland in the North Sea, and it seems crazy to give away to Norway stocks that we remain short of in Scotland. It makes no economic or fishing sense and puts the industry in an extremely difficult position under the landing obligation. With regard to the landing obligation, Presiding Officer, clearly and historically, Scotland has been very supportive of the landing obligation and stopping the practice of throwing dead fish back into sea. We certainly would not want to return to unaccounted levels of discarding, which will ultimately harm the stocks, resulting in reduced scientific advice and also reduced economic returns for the fleet. Under our own catch-and-policy, if we were allowed to develop one, we would deal primarily with fish availability and practical solutions, ideally allowing juvenile fish to be returned to the sea as of no value but as long as they were accounted for, perhaps by cameras or cameras on vessels. I hope to develop that point later in my speech. Overall, it is fair to say that the negotiations in Norway went well and followed the good news a couple of months ago that the quantity and value of fish that landed in Scotland had once more increased with the value of fish that landed by Scottish registered vessels in 2016, increasing by 25 per cent in real terms, according to the latest statistics published by the Scottish Government. Driven by an increase in the value of pelagic species, 453,000 tonnes of sea fish and shellfish was landed by Scottish registered vessels with a value of £557 million, as the cabinet secretary alluded to in his opening speech. Mackerel continues to be the most valuable stock that is accounted for £169 million in Scottish landings. It compared the previous year that the volume of landings increased by 3 per cent. It is far from doom and gloom for Scotland's fishermen these days, although we still do not know if, after we leave the EU, whether powers over fisheries will be returned to this Parliament and not retained by the UK Government. With the fish processors also faced with the uncertainty of Brexit, it has been good to see the Scottish Government supporting them through the EMFF. We know that the UK has been allocated €243.1 million in fisheries funding from 2014 to 2020 under the EMFF, which the Scottish Government fights hard for to ensure that we get Scotland's fair share of that funding, which is currently 46 per cent of the UK's share. With £81 million allocated from the EU to help Scottish businesses expand and become more sustainable over the current 2014 to 2020 funding period, the Scottish Government provides a further £53 million to the EMFF-awarded projects. We are also a major recipient of EU scientific funding. Although the EMFF funding will remain available while the UK is a member of the EU, once the UK leaves, although some of us harb our slight hope that we do not leave, our fisheries will still need financial support to make the transition to a sustainable fleet that is moving towards discard free fisheries. That will require to include funding for improving selective activities, both behaviour and gear, monitoring and enforcement, and strong science to underpin management decisions. Will that funding be available? We simply have to wait and see, but there is no doubt in my mind that effective monitoring, control and enforcement is key for sustainable fisheries management and particularly for monitoring the effectiveness of the landing obligation. At present, it is estimated that less than 1 per cent of fishing activities are monitored at sea, as Mark Ruskell has already mentioned. Better use needs to be made of existing resources to monitor fisheries compliance at sea effectively. The use of cost-effective remote electronic camera technology to support best practice should, in my view, be implemented with the added benefit of collecting catch data that could be used to feed into assessments and support quota management. Clearly, Scotland has huge potential to market high-quality sustainable seafood, and it must continue to work hard on providing confidence that that is the case. It is worth noting that New Zealand has just introduced remote electronic monitoring with cameras across its entire fleet, citing the reasons for doing so as reduction of waste and more responsive decision making and increased public confidence. I was pleased to hear that the cabinet secretary acknowledged the benefits of remote electronic monitoring following Mark Ruskell's earlier intervention. Now, without monitoring technology, the only ways of certifying catches are to rely on vessels on reporting, patchy satellite observations and occasional onshore monitoring of catches, nets and practices. If this move to on-board cameras is to be resisted by the industry, then it is worth highlighting that, since 2015, costs per vessel over 10 metres in length for modern technology have come down by over a fifth to less than £4,000 a year. It is clear that remote electronic monitoring is a gateway to sustainable fishing, providing correct data for science and reassured consumers. I have to take issue with the Tory amendment, which would seem to encourage setting aside existing rules to favour unsustainable fishing, which simply cannot and should not be supported. Finally, I wish the cabinet secretary, Marine Scotland and other officials good luck at the imminent December council. I look forward to confirmation of a good result for Scotland's fishermen, as was secured last year. It is fair to say that last time this chamber debated the future of Scottish fisheries, it seemed to be a clash over the merits or the dismerits of Brexit. I am glad to say that the cabinet secretary today has tried to avoid a repeat of that, and his motion does not mention it. I am sad that some have not tried to do that, and tried to drag that down to a level of Brexit or not Brexit. Leave it or remain it, it does not matter to me. The public message is clear whether you are standing on the key side or in the field. Stop bringing us continual problems, bring us solutions, and that is what I think we should be doing. We should all be and I am sure that we are all pro-Scottish fisheries, and we need to support our fishermen by laying the groundwork for the industry post-Brexit. Scottish fishermen want a speedy exit from the common fisheries policy, but they recognise that they will need a nine-month bridge to smooth that exit. I support that. Their sites are firmly set on the future and what works best for the industry. However, they are rightly concerned that the Scottish Government is not always being as proactive as it could be taking advantage of the obvious opportunities that Brexit may present, and why? It is simple, really. Too many mixed messages. I will certainly take an intervention. Can I just get to the end of this section? Too many mixed messages. The SNP says that they oppose the common fisheries policy but still squirm at the thought of signing the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's pledge to leave the failed common fisheries policy. Well, not all of them, really. Stuart Stevenson, who is sadly not here, may have proved to be the biggest catch of the day when he joined the Scottish Conservative MPs and MSPs in signing the pledge. Rhoda Grant, I thank the member for giving way. Can the member tell us exactly what their amendment means? Angus MacDonald has given his explanation. I am not entirely clear on the third Conservative speaker what their amendment means. Edward Mountain. First of all, it is going to be made exactly clear in the summing up. Presiding Officer, I am not used to taking interjections from people sitting down. If they want to make an interjection, I will surely take them, if they stand up, or I may try to answer the question themselves. Mr Mountain, that is really for me to say not you. Sorry, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, I will take an intervention. Mike Rumbles. Thank you for giving way. It is a genuine question. We are very puzzled. You are the third Conservative speaker, and none of us in this side of the chamber have a clue what the Conservative amendment actually means. Could you enlighten us? Edward Mountain. I am delighted to take an intervention from Mr Rumbles. The amendment in the motion is to allow us to use negotiations to get past the problems of choked species. Donald Cameron, when he sums up, will actually clarify what we mean by that. Signing the pledge, which is where we got to, does not make you a Brexiteer. It just makes you want to do what is right for our fishermen by re-establishing the UK as an independent coastal state, and that is the prize that our fishermen, I believe, are after. Whilst we welcome the good news of this year's EU-Norway talks, which saw quota increases for five of the six North Sea stocks, it was a different story last year. In 2016, the same talks were a mixed bag for our fishermen, with no uplift in the UK quota for blue-whiting and cuts to the side of the quota for herring and haddo. Those decisions favored Norwegian fishermen, despite Scottish fishermen working hard to restore the stocks to healthy levels, and those quotas highlighted the superior position of independent coastal states in negotiating with the EU. As our fishermen know any too well, the EU has an uncanny habit of negotiating a bad deal for our industry. This year's talks were far more positive, but Scottish fishermen still lost out on the EU negotiated for what is best for the other 27 members. Scottish Conservatives were disappointed with this, as much as the Cabinet Secretary was. To quote his words back to him, if I indeed may, we remain fully opposed in principle to giving Norway stocks that would remain short of ourselves. That makes no economic sense nor fishing sense, and risks putting the industry in a difficult position under the landing obligation. Re-establishing the UK as an independent coastal state with the power of negotiation of our own quotas will give us the potential to stop bad deals broken by the EU. With the EU finally sitting at the table, it can strike bilateral deals with Norway in the North Sea and strike a tripartate deal with the EU and Norway in the Southern North Sea. Those deals will better serve the interests of Scottish fishermen. In Scotland, as we all know, we are fortunate to have some of the best fishing grants in the world and a fishing industry that is growing in confidence. During the summer, I visited Kinlock Burvey and saw the fish market there. I heard about two new boats that were almost ready to go into service. They were being investing in Scotland, and that is what we would all like to see. However, it is not the only good news in the region that I represent. Cremoranti distillery has partnered with Heriot-Watt University and the Marine Conservation Society to restore the population of oysters in the dawn at Firth for the first time in 100 years. However, they are not stopping there. The distillery is now aiming towards establishing a new reef within five years. Two success stories from the Highlands and two examples that show a confident industry investing in its future. It is time for the Scottish Government to take the proactive approach that matches the confidence that our fishermen have. I urge the Scottish Government to listen to the fishing industry and make every available effort to assist the UK Government in seeking a smooth exit from the common fisheries policy. As the EUK moves closer to becoming an independent coastal state, the preparation for work for what is required afterward must now begin. I've McKee, the last speaker in the open debate, which means that we then move to closing speeches, warning to all. Mr McKee, please. The fishing industry is of vital importance to Scotland and its success is critical for many of our communities around the country. It is a central component of our successful food and drink sector and a key part of our national economic growth strategy, but, as it is on the four pillars of innovation, inclusive growth investment and internationalisation, because Scotland's rapidly growing food and drink exports, valued at more than £5 billion, are a vital sector for our future prosperity, focused as they are on premium products, much in demand across the world. Fishing is an industry that we should protect and encourage to grow. All parts of the sector are of importance. The catching sector, the larger processing sector and the onward marketing and sale of our fish around the world. The catching sector, which employs almost 5,000 people in Scotland, has seen recent growth. Over the course of a year, the value of fish that was landed by Scottish registered vessels in 2016 increased by 25 per cent in real terms, with a value of more than half a billion pounds, and the number of Scottish registered vessels also saw an increase. While it is of vital importance to ensure that the catching sector is successful to protect coastal communities, such a key part of it must also strive to ensure that the processing sector is not threatened by access to the EU labour force that relies on. Up to 70 per cent of fish processing workers in the north-east, for example, are from the EU, and their ability to stay and support this vital sector is under threat as a consequence of the hard Brexit decisions taken by the Tory Government. The fish processing sector, as I said in my speech, has suffered a decline in numbers since 2009, which was long before Brexit came along. Is that not true? The biggest threat, as the member well knows, to the processing industry is that so many sectors of Scotland's economy are the hard Brexit that the Tory Government that he supports is following and the restrictions that it is going to place on our ability to set us like fish processing to access EU workers. Of course, overshadowing the current on-going fishery negotiations are the shambles that are the Brexit negotiations. The UK Government's ill-advised pursuit of a hard Brexit creates significant risks to its vital and growing business that Scotland's seafood exports, and certainly abounds around the Brexit negotiations and the risks of both tariff and non-tariff barriers to Scotland's food exports is real. As James Willers, chief executive of Scotland Food and Drink, has said that a no-deal Brexit would be a disaster. Without free unhindered routes to market, fish stocks will rot in trucks at customs, destroying the value of produce and a source of export revenue vital to the Scottish economy. The EU is the largest overseas market for Scotland's seafood exports. Scotland's food and drink exports in the first half of 2017 grew by £119 million over the same period the previous year. A move to world trade organisations arrangements would lead to tariffs of between 7% and 13% being imposed on Scottish seafood exports to the EU. An addition to non-tariff barriers, including additional certification, comply with EU rules of origin requirements at a real risk, resulting in longer delays at customs ports. We all agree that fish stocks need to be managed, and that that management should be science-based, relying as it does on the work of ISIS to inform the sustainability of our fish stocks, as the cabinet secretary has made clear that the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring sustainability of fisheries in line with the scientific evidence. The EU common fisheries policy negotiations are underway, and we will likely conclude at the December council next week. We support the cabinet secretary and the work that he will do as part of that process. It should be remembered, of course, that Scotland will not have a seat at the negotiation table, but it will have to work through UK Government ministers, despite the fact that two-thirds of the total fish caught in the UK is landed north of the border. It should also be noted that, unlike, for example, in our regions, the UK does not include fishermen in its negotiating team. The outcome of the Brussels negotiation will be pivotal in helping Scotland's fishing fleet reduce the possible impacts of chocked species and the potential that they have to tie up the fleet. The Scottish Government is concerned to ensure that all available solutions are explored and adopted to prevent that from happening. The Scottish FISMO's federation has made many constructive points regarding how the UK Government should approach the December council negotiations, and the SFF briefing issued was very helpful in this regard, setting out as it does how stance is taken by the UK Government in this year's negotiations could impact on the success of future negotiations when the UK will act as a coastal state in its own right. However, there is a lack of clarity from UK Government ministers on whether the UK will leave the common fisheries policy in March 2019 when they intend for the UK to leave the EU or at the end of the transition period. However, the key point that we must not lose sight of is the control of Scottish fisheries and Scottish waters needs to come to this Parliament rather than be controlled by Westminster is the Scottish Parliament has the best interests of the Scottish fishing industry at heart. Westminster, on the other hand, has other priorities, as evidenced by the commitment given by Michael Gove to the Danes and the Dutch, as has been mentioned already in the debate, concerning their access to Scottish waters post-Brexit as part of wider UK trade negotiations. In conclusion, the Scottish fishing industry, including the catch-in, processing and exporting parts of the business, is not only an iconic part of Scotland's economy. It is not only vital to ensuring many of our coastal communities survive and thrive. It is also a critical part of Scotland's dynamic in expanding high-quality food and drink sector, and it is such a key role to play in the future success of Scotland's economy. Scotland is strategically placed as the best fishing industry in Europe, and the Scottish Government is committed to doing all that it can to make that a reality. With that in mind, I would like to take this opportunity to wish the cabinet secretary the best of success in representing Scotland's interests at the forthcoming negotiations in Brussels this coming week. Deputy Presiding Officer, Mr Ewing will be the third fisheries minister that has concluded the 18th fisheries debate over the time of this Parliament following Mr Lockhead and Mr Finney. I had a quick look back last night at some of the more memorable debates of that period, when the cabinet secretary had to have a phalanx of ministers around him to protect him from the vagaries of whatever was being debated on that time. He's only got one today, so it must not go down as a quiet afternoon before he heads for Brussels. I will regret this, but, of course— Well, you did say quiet. Stuart Stevenson. I'm not going to directly criticise the number that he used, but I can say in my first five years here that I participated in 14 fishing debates, so I think that the number is substantially higher than he's just quoted. That, of course, will be right, but I think that I meant the annual debate on the annual negotiations leading up to Christmas, rather than possibly many others that we have, as Mr Stevenson rightly says, had. Mr Ewing set out an entirely fair assessment of the current position leading into those talks this year, and without shadow of a doubt, as members from across the chamber have reflected, the situation is considerably more positive than has been the case in some other years. That's a reflection on the nature of our seas. I take the point that Mark Ruskell and Claudia Beamish have made about the environmental criteria. I think that one of the strongest points that Stuart Stevenson has made was about ISIS scientific evidence and the basis for that, the baseline for that and the fact that we are, in terms of Scotland—and I presume that this is also the case for the UK—absolutely committed to that over and for the future, because the essential component of that is the long-term data. I take the blue-planet point as well that Claudia Beamish was making, that not only is it fantastic television actually, but the Attenborough narrative through that is about the strength and importance of science over a period of time. Even in industries such as this, which has had its critics of science and there's been some dodgy days on scientific assessments from both sides of that argument, I think that the fundamental argument that Parliament is making this afternoon about the strength of science is both a reasonable one and an important one for the future. Rhoda Grant and many other members, indeed, the cabinet secretary, have made the argument about choked species and they're right. My only contention on this one, and I'm sure that Fergus Ewing will be the first to acknowledge it, is the minute we enter into a discard ban as a matter of principle, we create choked species as a point of practical import of that proposal. And when policy is being devised for the future, when and if Marine Scotland and government advisers get space to ever get to this point, the fundamental contradiction in some ways between a discard ban on one hand and the inevitability of choked species and how the quota system works in a mixed fishery is and has to be tackled. And I hope at some stage we get to that point. Frankly, a different policy approach if we had that famous blank piece of paper would be important in taking that forward. Nevertheless, the points that members have made from across the chamber on the reality of the choked species is absolutely the case. I was very grateful to Mr Ewing for his point about the 2014 so-called deal on EU pharaoh. Many adjectives could be applied to that so-called deal and I won't enter into the rhetoric. It's now some time past, but I am genuinely grateful to his point that the Government is looking closely at how that can be reassessed in the right way for the future. I hope that he will press that point with all vigor. I suppose that, as I was being cherished, he said that he had achieved 24 out of his 26 goals last year. I mean, that's an absolute disgrace. Why did he not achieve the full 26? What was wrong with those other two? And I hope he'll come back this year with a much better deal that takes all those to it, but that would be unfair and it would be completely cherished for me to make that remark. But we might all have some fun later about what the two were that didn't quite make it. Peter Chapman actually made two points that I entirely agreed with. The first was on local infrastructure and the importance of that. He made the point about the Peterhead fish market. My recollection is that fish market received a large grant from the European Union for its erection. We have the same aspirations in Loughwick once we get one or two small issues sorted out, such as the tendering procedure, but the point that Claudia Beamish and quite a number of other members made about the benefits that that EMF funding—it used to be called something else, but that is now what it is—has brought to Scotland is considerable and should not be ignored. It will not be there after Brexit. That will be another area that will not be funded in the way in which it has in the past. I have yet to see a balance sheet that shows me what fund will replace that in terms of the future investment in our key sides, in our fishing processing and in such important infrastructure as the provision of fish markets. The other point that I strongly agreed with Peter Chapman was oil. He is absolutely right when he says that fishing and the seafood industry more generally is, frankly, worth and will be worth more than the oil and gas industry in the piece and over the long term. I agree with that certainly from my constituency perspective. I think that it is an important reflection, but it only makes the case as to why funds such as the EMFF have been so important for the future. Can I share the general view that I think that quite a number of members have? I do not envy Donald Cameron. He has got to explain what his amendment means. I hope he does not have to spend his entire 10 minutes explaining what his amendment means, but it would not half help the chamber if he did a bit of that to finish up with. Can I make two other points? Firstly, a number of members, Emma Harper and Ivan McKee, just laterally, have mentioned tariffs and the importance of what that might mean for the future. Now, the truth is that we do not know what that might mean for the future, but we know how bad it could be. Therefore, if that is part of those negotiations, which we now know from this week, the UK cabinet has not even discussed in terms of the future trade deal. Again, that is not a point for Donald Cameron. It is certainly not Donald Cameron's responsibility or fault, but does this country need some clarity around the UK Government's position on those issues? It certainly does, and does the fishing industry need that? Absolutely, yes, and not, and without any further delay. If I may, I will finish with Stuart Stevenson's observations. He first set an important test. I suspect that the industry is setting that there should be 100 per cent control out to 200 miles. It will be interesting to see how that plays out, to use a phrase, over the coming weeks, months and indeed years, whether it makes the nine-month bridge or not—the transitional period or however that shapes out. The final observation is to Mr Stevenson. If he has made 716 speeches, I am deeply impressed. I cannot say I count how many. I am never going to get to stage where I count how many. However, I just wish Fergus Ewing best wishes for the council in next week, and I hope that it does not have to make 716 interventions during a course of that debate. A number of members have taken the opportunity this afternoon to look backwards as well as forward, perhaps in particular. I agree with those who have said that this year's fisheries council will be historic. I am not sure that anyone can say today in what way it will be historic. All that is certain about Britain's future relationship with the EU is that it remains shrouded in a fog of uncertainty, which has only got denser and darker in the course of this week. What that means for the fishery sector, like the rest of our economy, is that we are on a journey to a destination as yet unknown. We now understand that the UK Government has not seen fit to look into the impact of leaving the single market and customs union on any part of the economy. Bad news for our fish processors and exporters just as much as it is for everybody else. We also know that the sale on the sea of opportunity chartered by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation will not be straightforward, even once the wider issues around Brexit have been settled. Today's debate has been useful in laying out the areas that will need to be addressed next year and in 2019, and perhaps for a number of years beyond that. Tonight, we will be supporting the Government's motion and also Tavish Scott's amendment, with which we entirely agree. The Conservative amendment I fear remains almost as much of a mystery as Mrs May's Brexit strategy. One thing that we have all surely learned is not to assume that their purpose is actually what it seems. In the absence of greater clarity from Mr Cameron, I fear that we will not therefore be able to support Mr Chapman's amendment tonight. Reducing the impact of the landing obligation and choked species on the Scottish fleet will be important, whatever happens with Brexit. As Rhoda Grant said, we agree with the cabinet secretary that the discussions need to be driven by the need to find a solution that protects both the future sustainability of fish stocks and the commercial sustainability of the fishery sector. Indeed, seeking that balance should be the guiding light of everything that we seek to do. As we have heard, a large part of the large-scale commercial fishing fleet in the north-east and in Shetland understands that forward planning for both whitefish and pelagic sectors has to continue to be science-based and commercially aware, while the often smaller-scale fishing sector on the west coast and in the hebrides recognises the need for policy to protect some fragile marine environments, but also in balance with protecting some fragile coastal communities. Right around our coasts, that same essential balance will be required after March 2019, as it is required now, and the views and experiences of the catching sector, the fishing communities, fish farmers and fish processors must all be taken into account, as well indeed as the expertise of those who are focused on protecting the marine environment. We must also continue to support discussion-based and scientific evidence, and it would be a mistake to assume that the hard work in matching effort and capacity to biomass and sustainability is all behind us. It would add insult to injury for those who have left the industry in the past 10 years if stocks were now to fall below sustainable levels despite the reductions that have been made in the size of the fleet. I am glad that we have heard also about the issues facing the processing sector this afternoon. Like Stuart Stevenson, I was involved in the phrase of what a task force set up after hundreds of jobs were lost at Young Seafoods in 2015. I was pleased to hear the other day of new developments on one of the company's former sites in the town, which Mr Stevenson mentioned. As well as the impact on the local economy of the loss of so many jobs, one of the striking things about the fish processing workforce in Fraserborough was just how international it had become. Many of those who lost their jobs were from the Baltic states or from Poland or indeed from Portugal, and many of those workers were mobile enough to find jobs quickly in other towns or even other countries. However, there is no doubt that the seafood sector will be hard hit by the loss of free access to EU labour. Indeed, many work on fishing vessels are also from outwith, not just the UK but outwith the European Union. The response to the seafood sector may be more technology and fewer workers. That is a distinct possibility and a distinct threat. That would protect the interests of those businesses but at the expense of jobs in coastal communities. Loss of free access to EU markets is also a risk for that sector, too. Glob assumptions that other markets will open up instead will not be of much comfort if the order books do dry up. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation is right to want to talk about what lies ahead in the post-Brexit world. All parts of the wider industry will be affected by whatever deal is done or is not done in the next few weeks and months. I said earlier that little work appears to have been done on economic impacts by the UK Government and that is particularly worrying for a sector such as fisheries. It is particularly surprising that a sector such as fisheries, whereas a number of people have commented that there was support for leaving the European Union, that even a sector such as that has not been able to find the UK Government taking seriously what the economic impacts will be, what the downside and the upside might be of whatever happens next. I think that that is a sobering thought and a source of real concern. Older fishermen in north-east ports, and this point was made earlier, I think, by Tarish Scott, still talk bitterly about having been sold out at the time of the initial negotiations on joining the European community back in 1973. The problem then was that access to fishing grounds was a tradable commodity when it came to seeking the best possible deal for Britain joining Europe. Many fishermen are worried now that access to fishing grounds might still be a tradable commodity when it comes to seeking the best possible deal for leaving Europe again. They are right to be nervous at the increasing signs that UK ministers have no coherent plan or strategy for what the shape of our post-Brexit relationships might be. That lack of clear strategy seems to apply to this sector as well as elsewhere. At the apparent willingness of ministers to offer access to UK fishing grounds as an early negotiating gambit with other members of the EU. I wish Mr Ewing every success in delivering a fair deal for Scottish fisheries in Brussels in the next few days. We also need to see a fair deal for all our communities in the Brexit negotiations in the weeks that lie ahead. Mr McDonnell, I call Donald Cameron to close with the Conservatives. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is my first fishing debate. I have to say after the last two hours that I am kind of hoping that it might be my last. I jest, of course. I am delighted to be able to close for the Scottish Conservatives. As a Highlands and Islands MSP, with many fishing communities across the region that I represent, that is an area that I take great interest in. We will be supporting the Government's motion tonight, although not sadly the Lib Dem amendment, but let me bring clarity to the murky darkness of the amendment. The amendment of Peter Chapman, not myself, says all available solutions, including those of a political nature. That is a reference to the point in Peter Chapman's speech, which I am sure that everyone is listening to intently, that without major uplifts and quotas for choke species in the council meeting, the discard and landing obligations will lead to restrictions. In that scenario, what we believe is that the Government must be prepared to use its political clout through negotiation in relation to choke species, so that fishing is not restricted or, to quote, tied to the harbour wall. As I have said, I also would like to wish the cabinet secretary luck in his role in the council meeting. I would like to close this debate in the spirit that he opened it and not make it a Brexit to tit for tat. Representing the Highlands and Islands, I am acutely aware of the importance of fishing to our local economy, particularly that of the shellfish sector, which accounts for the vast majority of catchers in the West Highlands and the Hebrides. I am aware of the multiple benefits that having a strong seafood industry has for the region and Scotland as a whole. We are a nation rightly famed for our fish and shellfish in the Highlands and Islands and many other seafood products. It allows excellent and renowned local businesses such as lock fine oysters, the Stornoway smokehouse and the Cranug seafood restaurant in Fort William to operate and flourish. I believe that the sector can continue to expand, create new jobs and invigorate the communities that have been built around it. However, we will only get that expansion if we secure a good Brexit deal that meets the needs of the fishing sector. On-market and access to market, let me take Tavish Scott's point straight on. I am aware, of course, of the need for our fish and our shellfish to reach the European markets. I have stood on the pier in Oben and in Malag and I have seen the boxes of prawns go off to Spain and France. However, I am confident that our fish and our shellfish will remain in great demand in Europe. There will still be buyers queuing up to get the top-quality fish that we supply and it should make it even more likely that we will get a comprehensive free trade deal. On the outcome of the recent talks in Bergen, I am grateful to Mr Cameron for giving me an entirely agree with the point that they will still want our prawns and our fish. It is what they want in return for that access to market that is in question. We have seen what 13 Scottish Conservative MPs have achieved in Westminster, many of them representing fishing seats. I have no doubt that in Westminster they will stand up strongly for those communities, many of whom voted to lead the common fisheries policy and I have no fear that our MPs will stand up for those fishing communities and will not allow them to be treated as a bargaining chip. The outcome of the recent talks in Bergen shows us that while good progress can be made, there are also drawbacks and there is talk of the trade-away of Saith or Pollock Quota in the North Sea in the west of Scotland. It is one example of being forced to compete with a variety of other states who all have their own self-interest at heart. Leaving the EU and the CFP will allow us autonomy over our own waters and determine our own fishing policy, which balances sustainable fishing—I welcome the comments that people have made about that—and also ensures that the industry can remain competitive. That is not just the view of those benches, but it is the mood music coming from the sector and bodies that represent fishermen across Scotland. There is a great sense of optimism. The SFF recently reported on data that showed that 56 per cent of people agree that exiting the CFP will provide greater opportunities for UK fishermen. I would suggest that, notwithstanding the cabinet secretary's dark clouds, there are also rays of Brexit sunshine. In a newspaper article earlier this year, Mike Park, the chief executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, said that securing our own waters will mean that Scotland is securing a far greater share of the stocks that swim in our waters and deliver greater stability for coastal communities. He added that that that would benefit to the engineering haulage and processing firms that often go unmentioned. That undoubtedly will be a long process to get the right deal that works for the sector and the country. It would be useful and helpful if the Government worked to get a good deal overall. However, I earnestly hope that achieving a good Brexit deal for Scottish fishermen does not fail. We must not allow our fishing industry to remain shackled to the common fishery policies that has to paraphrase the SWFPA's scarred coastal communities. Let me move on to the end of year negotiations in the December council. I want to turn to that matter and what it means for the here and now. Acknowledging the fact that we are not leaving the European Union formally until March 2019, with most probably a period of transition thereafter, we must ensure that Scotland gets a good deal from all discussions that relate to the fishing sector. We must continue to work closely with the EU and those member states who have a stake in the sector and, of course, non-EU nations such as Iceland and Norway too. Realistically, that could potentially be the last year where those pre-December talks are held, which include the position of the United Kingdom, and I once again welcome the generally positive agreement that resulted. What I would ask the cabinet secretary in his summing up to address is whether he is in favour of the nine-month bridge in 2019 that was suggested by the Scottish Fishery Federation. We need to look to the future and plan ahead, of course, with the announcement in the last Queen's speech that the UK Government will introduce a fisheries bill. This is the perfect opportunity for our colleagues in Westminster and all of us in this Parliament to engage in that. We need to ensure that our industry gets the boost that it deserves after years of decline while simultaneously working with our neighbours on the continent to ensure proper parity. The bill could be the catalyst to reverse those lost years, which, for example, has seen Scotland fall behind England in seafood processing terms, with 12 per cent of jobs lost in Scotland compared to 10 per cent in England. I have heard that often enough in my region of the Highlands and Islands, particularly when I visit places such as Stornoway. In closing, if I could briefly mention the speeches of Peter Chapman and Liam Kerr and Edward Mountain and others, including Claudia Beamish and Lewis MacDonald, both of which brought a very interesting perspective to the debate, we welcome to conclude, Presiding Officer, we welcome the quota increases secured in the EU Norway talks and we welcome the positive news on total allowable catch and the hard work that our fishermen have put into maintaining stocks. We are mindful of the fact that we are leaving the EU in 2019 and we do have to, as the Scottish Fisheries Federation describes it, take advantage of this sea of opportunity to secure a Brexit deal that works for fishing and the communities that depend on it. We all need to get behind this process and I am confident that, if we do, one of Scotland's most important sectors will reap those rewards for years to come. I am grateful to members for their support of the Scottish Government and my own efforts over the next few days in achieving the best possible deal for Scotland. That is a traditional debate and, traditionally, as some of the older hands have pointed out, parties join and unite in wishing well the cabinet secretary who has the privilege of discharging his responsibility. I am generally grateful for those warm wishes and the generally constructive tone of the debate. It is always good to hear stories and anecdotes and views about the fishing communities throughout the whole country, from Shetland down to Dumfries, as Stavis Scott alluded to, and all the fishing ports on the east coast. They make an enormous contribution to Scottish society and they do so as one member, Mr Kerr, has pointed out at some risk to their own life as well. There are one of the few types of jobs left now where there is a genuine risk, very serious risks. We should never forget that. When I represented Maliag some time ago, I always made that point in those debates as a humble back-bencher, because I think that we should not forget it. Also, as it happens, I had the pleasure of opening the new distribution and administration centre of Audis in Bathgate, serving Scotland. I learned from them that consumption of fish is growing in comparison to meat, both sea fish and farm fish. As more and more people see the benefits, the obvious enjoyment, but also the nutritious benefits of fish, not that anything against meat is a harden, a committed carnivore. More and more people are enjoying our fish and our shellfish, and increasingly that is the case all over the world. Part of it, to take Claudia Beamish's point, is at the gathering in Glen Eagle of buyers from all over the world and companies from Scotland—150 of each. Many buyers from places such as Singapore made the point that the provenance of Scotland's clean green image is increasingly important for retailer purchase, and we should not forget that either. That is why I was pleased to confirm that fishing must be sustainable. I wanted to address, in responding to the points raised in the debate, and some of them are about Brexit. I will try to address those, although they are not the primary purpose of the debate, and I should make that clear. I should say in response to Mr Ruskell, that we are committed to sustainable fishing, and that means respecting the science. I would point out that the scientific evidence is about what is happening beneath the surface of the sea, and it is open to debate and question, and it is a legitimate area for discussion. Nonetheless, in principle, of course, we accept the science. We should recognise, at the same time, the efforts that the fishing sector has made in the cod recovery plan, for example. There was a headline in a newspaper that there were only 1,000 cod left in the North Sea. What rubbish should that prove to be? The fisherman, as Mr Stevenson mentioned, as having direct interest in conservation helped to deliver that plan, and I think that sometimes it is right to point out that he should get the credit for that. The choked species—I think that Tavie Scott is in excellent speech—is less pressured and stressful than perhaps some of those that he had to make over the years. I will not go into all that, but he and I know exactly what he made in excellent speech, and he pointed out that, if you have a TAC and a discard ban, that does lead to pressures. However, in response to Mr Cameron, I do not think that the use of the word political is helpful in this debate. We cannot support the amendment. We could support it in the sense that it is ambiguous because it does not really have a clear meaning at all, and therefore, if it is part of the motion that is accepted, it really can mean anything. One wishes it to mean. However, the reality is that what it means is that acting in an extra legal way and moving away to bad practices. I think that that is how it is perceived. I do not think that that is the correct approach that we should take. Incidentally, I know that it is not the approach that the UK Government will take at all, so it is, in that sense, academic. However, I want to say in respect of the choked species that, as well as setting TACs that take account of current discard levels—for example, the discard levels of cod are thought to be around 1,200 tonnes, so that would take care of that if that could be achieved. As well as that, there is a whole plethora, which Mr Cameron did not mention, although perhaps he did not have time, but there is a whole plethora of other measures. For example, in the west of Scotland, whiting choked species selectivity measures might be a solution. In respect of North Sea Ling, a potential choke risk, inter-area flexibility, having the TACs and quotas applying across differing areas of the North Sea, can give the flexibility to remove the choke problem. I do not know whether there is a sustained appetite for another five minutes or so of discourse on the choked species, but I know that Mr Scott is nodding, so I have reached the most intelligent electorate here of the fishing. Apart from Mr Stevenson, of course, I should mention quickly. It is correct to say that we will not be supporting the Tory amendment. I think that it would send out a wrong signal that we are moving away from the principles that the public expect us to observe of sustainable fishing using all the available technology. I confirm that that is something that we support, and I think that we will develop the use of that as time goes on. I wanted to make that assurance quite clear, because I know that the Greens have a particular interest in that, and rightly so. However, many members have mentioned the problems that are associated with Brexit. Mr McKee mentioned the maintenance of processing and the number of people from EU countries. Unlike in so many other areas of the rural economy, it is difficult to see how processing operations can continue without the Labour of those who choose to give the benefits of their working lives to Scotland and Scottish industries. In respect of trade, many members made points about the importance of trade. I think that Rhoda Grant, Stuart Stevenson and Angus MacDonald referred to the importance of trade. Obviously, the European market is the largest overseas market. As far as the Brexit opportunities, it is not clear to me what export market is not currently accessible. What new markets are inaccessible to us at the moment is their antennae. However, if we are subject to WTO, the tariffs that the industry will face would be 7 per cent or perhaps up to double that, adding, I understand, around £41 million to the tax burden as a direct Brexit cost. Therefore, that surely is something that we should all say is a very bad idea. I was also asked by Claudia Beamish if I could respond about what we have done at EMF. I am happy to do so. The EMF, as Mr Stevenson says, contributes around £80 million under the 7 million euros to Scotland. Incidentally, our share is not as much as it should be out of the total, but that money has provided enormous benefits. I have seen around Fraser Burra, Peterhead, Scrabster, improving harbours and processing facilities, enabling processing plants to up their game to be more competitive and thereby operate more successfully and help to pay their staff a decent remuneration. That has been invaluable. It is secure up to 2020, but thereafter we do not know. I can tell you directly that I asked Mr Gove when I met him last, will you replace the EMF post-Brexit? Answer, come, came, there, none. We simply have no idea on that or, indeed, on any other substantive issue what the UK are saying should happen post-Brexit. I think that that, convener, is unfortunate. On a consensual note, I am very grateful for the support of all members, and I undertake to do everything that I can to get the best possible deal for Scotland's fishing communities throughout Scotland over the coming days. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on sea fisheries and end-year negotiations. We turn straight to decision time. The first question is amendment 9406.2, in the name of Peter Chapman, who seeks to amend motion 9406 in the name of Fergus Ewing, on sea fisheries and end-year negotiations, 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 9406.2, in the name of Peter Chapman, is yes, 28, no, 57. There were 14 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is amendment 9406.1, in the name of Tavish Scott, who seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing, is 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 9406.1, in the name of Tavish Scott, is yes, 71, no, 28. The amendment is agreed. The final question is that motion 9406, in the name of Fergus Ewing, as amended, on sea fisheries and end-year negotiations, 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 9406, in the name of Fergus Ewing, as amended, is yes, 70, no, 29. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. I close this meeting.