 The next item of business is a debate on motion 5603, in the name of Peter Chapman on fisheries. Can I write members who wish to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now? I call on Peter Chapman to speak to and move the motion. Mr Chapman, eight minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I very much welcome this opportunity debate to debate this significant topic and highlight how we in the Conservative party in this Parliament have a positive forward-looking plan for a more prosperous UK and Scottish fishing industry following our departure from the European Union. Our positive and optimistic plan is in stark contrast to the SNP, who once more have adopted their standard pessimistic and defeatist approach. We are the party who understand the wishes and aspirations of the vast majority of the people who are in the fishing industry in Scotland, be they skippers, deckhands, processors or merchants, and we have a positive vision of a prosperous, sustainable, expanding and environmentally friendly industry going forward. Not at this time. The SNP, on the other hand, has nothing to offer other than more of the same. Under their plans, we would remain shackled to the CFP, which is seen by our fishermen as being nothing short of a total disaster. The SNP wants to continue to tie us to a system that has been in force for decades. Just a wee minute, Mr Chapman. I want to hear Mr Chapman. Mr Stevenson, you will be speaking later. You'll have every opportunity to make your views known. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. A system that has resulted in persistent failure and that has caused nothing but frustration, resentment and distress for those involved. Let's be clear about what this industry wants and expects from our politicians. Although I voted to remain in the EU referendum, I have made no secret of that fact. Indeed, I took some criticism from skippers in the north-east for my stance, because almost to a man they voted to come out of the European Union. They want out of the EU, out of the CFP and they want control over our exclusive economic zone out of 200 miles from our shores. Does Mr Chapman believe that, since the EU single market has 500 million people and is a key export market for our seafood, with the seafood exports being worth £601 million, that that is a market to which we should continue to have access? Mr Chapman. I totally agree. We will have access and our fish is in huge demand in Europe and the buyers there want to see it continue. They want out of the EU, out of the CFP and they want control over our out of 200 miles. Three very clear and simple elements which we in the Conservative Party intend to deliver. What can the SNP deliver for our fishing communities? We know that they are desperately trying to engineer a second independence referendum. If they were to win that vote, they are done at the moment. They seem to be denying that they want another independence referendum. Thankfully, it looks increasingly unlikely that they would win that, but should they win that, they would immediately reapply to join the European Union, taking us straight back into the tested CFP. Something which they have failed to make clear in their amendment today. Right, that's enough banging, that's enough barracking round here. I want to hear a debate, not a rame. Mr Chapman, please. They want to take us out of touch though the SNP are with the fishing communities, even they know that this is hugely unpopular. So what do they do? They spin a line that on the way in they would renegotiate the CFP and somehow get a better, fairer deal, not at chance. I have a letter from the EU fishing commissioner Carmen Ovella and it clearly states that any new country accessing the EU must accept the CFP in its entirety. There is no way that the SNP will be able to influence or out of that treaty. No ifs, no buts, no renegotiation. So where did the SNP go from here? All they can do now is smear and scare monger and suggest that the UK Government will sell out the fishing industry during exit negotiations. The First Minister herself tried that tactic just last week. After getting her hands on a private letter from Andrea Ledson to the leader of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, Bertie Armstrong, she deliberately tried to confuse and misconstrue the content of the letter, tweeting joyfully that here was the evidence of a sell-out. Of course it backfired spectacularly when the man the letter was written to, the said Bertie Armstrong retorted that he was perfectly satisfied with the UK's negotiating stance and indeed believed the letter if read in its entirety was very robust and explicit in stating that the UK will come out of the CFP and will take back control out of 200 miles. I am very sorry but Mr Ross and the minister are having a little private debate while you are trying to speak. That is not appropriate. I totally agree. Game set and matched to Ms Ledson, leaving Nicola Sturgeon looking desperate, misleading and downright wrong. The way forward is very clear. As an independent country out of the EU, the UK under international law passed in 1982 and backed by the United Nations Convention can take control of its waters to 200 miles. Now this does not mean that foreign boats will never fish our waters again but it does mean that they will fish under our rules and regulations and that we will be in control and that is a huge prize. That is the sea of opportunity our fishermen welcome. This will address the unjust situation at the moment in which 60 per cent of the fish caught in UK waters are caught by foreign vessels. That equates to 650,000 tonnes of fish by the EU boats in our waters every year worth £400 million. In comparison, our boats only catch 90,000 tonnes of fish in other EU waters worth a mere £100 million. Put another way, between 2012 and 2014 EU boats got half the demersal fish, two thirds of the pelagic fish and almost all of the industrial fish in our 200-mile exclusive zone. Nobody can argue that this is a fair division. The other strand of the disaster story that the SNP tried to spin is that we will lose the EU markets for our fish. We've heard it already. Yes, the EU market is important and we obviously want to keep it. However, I have spoken to numerous fish processors in Peterhead and Fraserborough who are very relaxed about keeping their markets. It is clear to you, quite rightly, that our fish are in great demand in Europe. Indeed, buyers are queuing up to get the top quality fish that we supply, often fish that is unavailable elsewhere. It is also a fact that our stance in the Brexit negotiations is to get a comprehensive free trade deal. Why shouldn't we get such a deal, given that a free trade deal is as much to the European's benefit as it is to ours? Presiding Officer, I will finish with a quote from Iceland's Minister for Fisheries. Iceland applied to join the EU in 2009, but withdrew its application in 2015 mainly because it would have to join the CFP and they didn't like what they saw. In June 2016, just a year ago, their fisheries minister said and I quote, I would never join the EU. There is a life outside it as we have proven. We have one of the biggest and one of the strongest fisheries in the world that is sustainable without any subsidies from the state. We don't have to share this decision making with anyone else. It would be difficult for Icelanders to control their economic and fisheries sectors having to discuss it with 27 or 28 other countries. Presiding Officer, that is the kind of future that awaits our fishing industry once we leave the outdated, bureaucratic unreformable European common fisheries policy, and I, for one, welcome that future. I move a motion in my name. Thank you, Mr Chapman. I don't like the banging on desks, so just stop doing it. Can I call now Fergus Ewing, Cabinet Secretary, to speak in move amendment 5603.3, six minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. When we joined the EU, a Scottish office paper was written. This Scottish office paper remained hidden. It remained hidden for 30 years under the UK Official Secrets Act. What that paper said was, and I quote, in the wider UK context, they, the fishermen, must be regarded as expendable. Now, this quote was first quoted in Parliament in Westminster by Alex Salmond in 2001, and I'm quoting from Hansard. I'll give away in a moment, just after I make this point. That was the true view of the UK Government at that time, that the interests of Scotland's fishermen were expendable, and indeed it was never intended that that real view would be made public because it was an official secret document and it only became public 30 years. I'll give way to Mr Chapman, but will he apologise now on behalf of the Scottish Tories for that betrayal when we were taken into the EU? Peter Chapman. We hear about something that happened 47 years ago, and it wasn't even a Government Minister who had said that. It's far more effective to look at what's going on just now. Andrea Ledgson's letter right now says, back control of our waters to 200 miles. That is much more significant than quoting something that was said 47 years ago by a junior official. Cabinet Secretary. Well, Presiding Officer, I will now move on to what happened after that. Let's move forward, shall we, and let's move forward into the 80s when under Margaret Thatcher. I'm sorry, this is worth listening. Excuse me, sit down a minute, Cabinet Secretary. I had people be quiet for Mr Chapman, and people will be quiet for the Cabinet Secretary, and I do not want to hear the banging on desks. You can applaud, that's much more reasonable if you wish. Certainly I don't expect you to be applauding the Cabinet Secretary. Well, they can bang the desks, but they can't undo history, and they haven't got the guts to apologise for something they must know was wrong. That's the really interesting thing, but let's move forward and provide a little bit of rudimentary education. Under Mrs Thatcher in the 80s, the UK Government signed us up, signed us up to the original doomed common fisheries policy. It was your heroine that took us in to the common fisheries policy. Well, maybe she's not. I mean, if she's not your heroine, let me know if there's any. Oh, no, she is. Okay, we've got that clear then. So that was the first thing. Then, in the history lesson, John Major's story signed us up to revise CFP in the 1990s. What did it have at its heart? The scrapping of vessels and the decimation of livelihoods, destroying the economy and wellbeing in many of our coastal communities. Now, this is fact, and this is actually why feeling is so strong about the CFP. It's not what happened yesterday, last year, the year before, it's what's happened for decades. Well, okay, it was Mrs Thatcher wrong when she took us in and was John Major wrong when he took us in to revise policy. It's another chance to apologise, Mr Chapman, a second opportunity. Mr Chapman. You are making the point very well that we want to be out of the CFP. It's an SNP that wants to keep us in there. Cabinet Secretary, don't overdo it. Don't overdo it, please, just to make a point. I know what you're up to, being there, seeing it, got the T-shirt. Cabinet Secretary. Well, at least they stopped buying their desks. In this century, the Tories have attempted to enshrine the CFP in the European treaties. In the European treaties. So, this is the fourth of Minical of Evidence, which shows that the Tories, time and again, have not only supported the CFP, but taken us into it, kept us in it and then had it enshrined in the law. That's what the record is. But let's move forward right to the current time during my period over the last year. Let's look at the monkfish swap issue. Last year, the UK authorities blocked for three months an international swap that would have brought in 200 tonnes, a significant amount of monkfish quota. This was worth millions of pounds to many Scottish fishermen. They blocked this under the instruction from George Eustis. Let me be clear. George Eustis is a reasonable and intelligent man, but he blocked this deal because the deal swapped out a tiny amount of skates quota targeted by some inshore vessels in England. It took months and my personal intervention to get the deal through. The deal that should have taken two days instead took three months. During those weeks, fishermen had no choice but to dump high-value catches of monkfish. Of course, there's Arctic Cod. In the EU-Norway negotiations, the UK has regularly voted for a swap package that has disadvantaged Scotland. This is because Scottish Blue-White quota is primarily used to secure an inward transfer of Arctic Cod from Norway, of which the UK receives 47 per cent but Scotland receives zero. For example, in 2017, Scotland forfeited over 20,000 tonnes of Blue-White into the swaps worth around £4 million at 216 prices, but gained no benefit, not even a single kilo of Arctic Cod that came back. I certainly give way. I'm grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. He's used a large part of his speech to explain why the common fisheries policy is so bad. Will he now explain why his party wants to remain inside the common fisheries policy rather than respecting the view of the people in coastal communities who voted to leave it and want to stay out of it? Cabinet secretary. That is a political assertion, but it is not the reality of the matter. I've just described two examples in which, over the past year, not 30 years ago or 40 years ago, I've sought to negotiate with George Eustice, a not unreasonable guy who I try to have a constructive relationship on each occasion that Scotland's interests were betrayed. Those deals were nothing to do with the EU. They were matters entirely within the UK Government's control. The UK Government says, of course, that this will all change once we're out with the EU. The Conservatives are certainly saying this, that we will have total control. They say it, don't they? What did George Eustice say? He said back in April 2016, that everything would be put back on the table for discussion, including access rights. Mr Mundell let me quote him. I presume that you support what Mr Mundell says, but let me just check. He said, I would say the idea we would go back to a position where we were entirely in control of our own fishing is not one that is realistic. That's the guy that you want to be the Secretary of State. He says controlling our own fish is not a realistic scenario. Is it too much to ask, I think that my time is coming to an end, that during this debate, if it's to be more than knock about, that one of you, just one of you say, is David Mundell right, or are you just devoting this episode to the same political rhetoric and the same treachery of your track record over the past decades that proves that you cannot be trusted for the future of Scotland. Please move the amendment, cabinet secretary. Please move your amendment. The point of order. The language in this context. I think that in the circumstances in this very heated debate, I think that we should all be mindful of the language you use and our behaviour, and while I'm on the microphone, can I say, for the public watching outside on a serious issue, it behoves nobody sitting in this chamber to just have a rammy going on, shouting, thumping, des and so on. It doesn't do you any credit, and it's often reported to me when I'm outside and about. I think that we should all be mindful of the language you use and our behaviour. I know that you're all passionate, but that doesn't excuse bad behaviour. I now ask Lord Grant to speak and move amendment 5603.25. Please, Ms Grant. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The motion for debate acknowledges that the fishing community see Brexit as providing them with an opportunity. The common fisheries policy has always been a bone of contention for them. Annual negotiations based on horse trading, on sensible policies that could manage our fishery for future generations. There is now an opportunity to devise a policy that does that. However, fishing is still a political football, as we have seen this afternoon. The SNP are looking both ways at once, promising to rejoin the EU, but come out of the sea, the common fisheries policy. This is nonsense. If we're ever joining the European Union, either as part of the UK or as a separate Scotland, we wouldn't get pick-and-mix membership who would be told to take it or leave it. Proved impossible to negotiate a better CFP within the EU and, to be honest, it would be foolish to think that you could do that while begging to get back in. It's also wrong of the Conservatives to say that a hard Brexit would lead to a free trade agreement with the EU. That simply wouldn't be the case. While not agreeing with Brexit, I can understand the wishes of the fishing communities to come out, but it would be wrong not to highlight the risks of leaving as well as the potential benefits. Being in the EU means that our fish can be sold in Europe without any trade tariffs and red tape. That means that it can be sold fresh in their markets. We know from the blockades at Calais that it meant days delays and huge losses of fresh fish that were no longer market because of those delays. Any delay in exporting fresh fish puts the market at risk and I sincerely hope that that will not happen with Brexit. It is also clear from the Prime Minister's statements that she understands that the EU will want access to UK fishing grounds as part of our relationship with them going forward. Our fishing grounds will become one element of a negotiation that will have lasting ramifications for the fishing industry. The future holds dangers for our fishing community and while they talk up the opportunities they also have to be alive to the risks. We believe that repatriated responsibility for fishing should be devolved to Scotland after leaving the EU. It will mean that we have to negotiate fishing rights with other countries and we will need to negotiate the management of fishing stocks. Fish do not recognise borders collaboratively to ensure that we have a sustainable fishery. We will be subject to the UN convention and the law of the sea which demands the use of quotas and sustainable management and this will require negotiations with the EU in the same way that we currently negotiate with non-EU countries. Access to a single market is also necessary. The fishing community's fear bureaucracy much more than the fear trade tariffs because bureaucracy could delay exports meaning that the fresh fish market could become unreliable. It is not only an issue for our catching sector but also for our fish farming sector and it is often overlooked when we are talking about fish supplies. When we look at fisheries in Brexit we would be wrong simply to look at the catching sector alone. We also need to look at the jobs onshore that depend on a vibrant industry too. Many of those are in rural Scotland providing jobs and contributing to fragile local economies. They span from fish sellers, processors and those who work throughout the food chain and those that provide services to the fishing communities, businesses such as channel raise and port infrastructure and their like. They are essential to local economies and also provide their services to our growing sea going tourism industry. The services would disappear from our ports making it difficult to cater for the leisure boat market which is growing. It is not just rural communities that are affected. Many of our fish processing jobs, especially those that add value to fish, are based in our more urban communities and often those communities are communities with high deprivation. If they lose the source of employment it will be devastating to them too. Those communities, both urban and rural, also need inward migration to help staff food processors and to keep those industries alive. In the parts of the industries that are seasonal, migrant labour is essential and being out of the EU would impact on the supply of this workforce. If gaining work permits becomes onerous, those workers might go elsewhere where they are more welcome and again this would impact on our industry. In conclusion, we need to stop our fishing community into ponds and again. We need politicians to listen to the concerns of these communities, seize the opportunity from Brexit and we need to make sure that those are realised but we also need to guard against the pitfalls. I ask you to move your amendment please. Move the amendment. Thank you. Moving to the open debate I call Finlay Carson to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Mr Carson, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The industry is vital to our culture, our economy and is a bedrock of many communities right across the country. The United Kingdom leaving the European Union offers us a real opportunity to get fishing right, to create a fisheries management regime that better suits the needs of fishermen here in the UK and in Scotland. We have the opportunity to level the playing field so that more fish caught in Scottish waters are caught by Scottish fishing vessels and processed in Scottish factories benefiting our rural communities and the wider economy. We can stop the endless bureaucracy from Brussels and start to work more closely with our fishermen and processors to work a successful and prosperous industry fit for purpose, fit for the future. It is our responsibility as elected members to recognise and take hold of these opportunities to use the levers of government to create an environment that works in the best interests of the fishing industry. What is wrong with the CFP? While the fishermen are absolutely right for wanting out, the CFP lacks any proper regional control and fails to take local factors into account when determining policy. Its excessive bureaucracy and red tapes make fishing an increasingly more difficult industry to be part of. Most importantly, the way quota is calculated is fundamentally unfair. It is based on historical catch figures that do not represent the current situation. A recent report by Iain Napier of Scotland's NAFC Marine Centre revealed the stark reality of fishing opportunities in the North Sea. EU boats caught seven times more fish in UK waters than UK boats caught in EU waters. That equates to around 650,000 tonnes of fish and shellfish worth more than 400 million each year. We now have the opportunity to redress that balance. There is absolutely no question of negotiating from within the CFP. It has not worked up till now and I have zero confidence that it would work in the future. The truth is that even with the little influence that SNP has in Brussels they have chosen not to use it whereas the Conservative EU spoke when fisheries Iain Duncan has been responsible for his political group and a number of significant reports recently. On the landing obligation the cod plan deep sea fisheries the drift net ban and technical conservation measures. Meanwhile, the SNP fisheries spokesman Iain Hockdon has not even looked after a single report. Not one. Not only in Holyrood are the SNP and the Greens partners in crime but in Europe. The SNP sits with the Greens Greens who want to ban fishing in huge swaths of European water and continuously look for greater restrictions on fishermen. The SNP standing up for the interests of Scottish fishermen I don't think so. I will. Cabinet secretary. Is he aware that at the last negotiations which I attended in Brussels in December that all the leaders of the Scottish fishing representatives recognised that we and the Scottish Government thanks to our excellent team of negotiators achieved a very good deal indeed. Can you say what the Scottish Conservatives would do post Brexit to replace the 33 million of EMFF funds that has been so invaluable to our fishing communities? Finlay Carson, I'll give your time back. That was a long intervention. Thank you for that intervention. I'd like to point out that even though it's very much welcome that funding is only worth 4% on fishing in Scottish ports so the Scottish fishing industry isn't one that relies on handouts. Just last month I met with a group of concerned pelagic fishermen. They are worried that Fergus Ewing has held back 12% of the 2017 Mackerel quota and the dispute with fishermen over the number of landings in Scotland's ports. Mackerel is the most valuable fishery in Scotland with 30% of the total value of Scottish landings. It is the ambition to see more fish landed and processed here in Scotland. However, holding fishermen to ransom is not the way to achieve that. This Government instead should look at why so many fish are landed abroad and how we can work with the industry to increase landings in Scotland. Instead, all we have seen here is SNP... Members in his last 30 seconds. In conclusion, we have seen more flopping from the SNP when it comes to the position of fishing that it could be compared to a dog's dinner but it is probably more appropriately compared to a fish supper. It is misleading, it is disingenuous and frankly it is insulting to everybody in Scotland with an interest in seeing our fisheries properly prosper. I was extremely disappointed to see that the SNP amendment refused to back a commitment to keep fishermen out of the CFP something that I am sure will be noted by our fishing community. You must conclude now. Please sit down. Because of your bad behaviour we have lost a lot of time in speeches so they are all now very tight for minutes and it is all your own fault. I now call Stuart Stevenson, followed by Claudia Beamish. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The catching of wild fish is an industry that has consistently been let down by Tory policy and practice over the decades. The contrast with the SNP benches could not be more stark than as now. 1970s SNP policy leaflet at paragraph 14a and I quote, the right to impose an exclusive 100-mile limit. The only change that we have made is now 200 miles. We are the only party to have consistently always invariably opposed the common fisheries policy. Donald Stuart, the leader of the SNP, spoke in the House of Commons in 1983 against the common fisheries policy where it was a matter of debate then. Alan McCartney wrote an excellent paper in the 1990s on precisely the point that Finlay Carson addressed, regional control. Those are issues that the SNP has been engaged in from the outset and remains engaged in. On 17 January I brought to a member's debate to supporting the Scottish Fishermen's Federation Sea of Opportunity campaign to this chamber. The motion said, among other things, considers that full control of fishing in the offshore economic zone represents an opportunity to reinvigorate coastal communities. Two Tory actions that day showed them once again in all their ambivalence towards our fishermen. No Tory signed the motion supporting the Sea of Opportunity and that same day the Tory Prime Minister made a speech entitled The Government's Negotiating Objectives for Existing the EU. It contained a single reference to fishing, a reference to Spanish fishermen, nothing about our fishermen, nothing about our fishing industries. On 2 February the Tory's white paper stated at paragraph 8.16 it's in both our interests to reach a mutually beneficial deal that works for the UK and the EU's fishing community works for the EU's fishing communities, a signal in the most unambiguous language possible that there's a deal for fishermen in other jurisdictions. We're being sold out again and at 6 minutes, 27 seconds into his speech Peter Chapman confirmed that it is a matter of Tory policy that foreign vessels will continue to be fishing in our waters. There's a clear opportunity as we leave the CFP to reclaim our fishing rights as our waters are being traded again. But if there's an advantage being denied our fishermen there's an even graver and disadvantage impact looming for our processors and Roda Grant very eloquently articulated much on that. I'll simply quote from the UK Government's Treasury analysis of the 23 May 2016 paragraph 1.15 I want to make sure I give all the references. Businesses that trade with the EU would be uncertain about the UK's access to the single market. Not knowing what restrictions could be put on their ability to trade including tariffs, customs costs or non-tariff barriers and crucially it goes on and those that currently benefit from EU funding would not know what support if any of that to receive after the UK left that includes fishermen. That's important for many small communities around Scotland. Just when we thought we'd escape the CFP we'll be hit by a Tory Government that trades away our advantage and sees trade and fiscal barriers elected. Ms Leveson's letter does not take any opportunity to rebut what has been previously said. Boris Johnson, 26 June 2016, the only change that will not come in a great rush is the UK will extricate itself from the EU's extraordinary and opaque system of legislation. It says nothing about leaving the single market abandoned in isolation. It doesn't work. Can I say to everybody that we are running way behind time and it's going to affect the other speakers within your own groups because we are running way behind time. I call Claudia Beamish to be followed by John Finnie, who doesn't have another member in his group. Right, Presiding Officer. Claudia Beamish. Presiding Officer, I hope I get my 10 seconds back. When we talk about stakeholders in the marine environment we are actually being indiscriminate because while fishermen, coastal communities and environmentalists lead the conversation, we are all affected by our marine environment and we all I hope share the same aim, sustainable productive fisheries operating within healthy and biologically diverse seas. In consideration for a post Brexit UK it would be a significant failing in negotiations if our fishing regulations were left in a weakened state. The current EU commitments for fisheries management following the 2013 reform have sustainability at their core with measurable results. Since 2007, the percentage of over fish stocks has fallen by a quarter from 72% down to 47%. Whatever the future arrangements there must be strong structures for liaison with relevant countries and partner organisations. It is very concerning to imagine our marine resources as a pawn in negotiations and the sector deserves reassurances. There are significant issues to be addressed mechanisms for shared management sufficient resourcing for data collection and monitoring and, as our amendment states, access to European markets. The longevity of our fisheries truly depends on the scientific foundation from which decisions are taken. Catch limits and quotas must be developed from up-to-date and robust scientific advice and improvements to technical measures should be supported. This principle is particularly important with regard to the discard ban. Figures from 2005 estimate that 7 million tonnes of fish were discarded globally. Scotland has shown considerable progress thanks to the efforts from fishermen with only 16% of all white fish catches in the North Sea discarded in 2016. The Scottish Government must support the continued progress towards the ban of this wasteful practice, as I'm sure it will. I ask the Cabinet Secretary to explain any details of how this support is developing. I note that the Scottish Government figures report a drop in the number of boats using remote electronic monitoring since the introduction and tightening of landing obligations. In 2014, 32 boats used cameras to monitor their catch and, more recently, that number has dropped to 15 boats. So, can the Cabinet Secretary also make any comment on this in his closing remarks? Sustainable development and proper resourcing and clear processes for engagement from stakeholders are absolutely vital for the future. It is immensely important that legislators recognise the level of expertise to be found in the industry, science community and NGOs, as well as communities. It was fantastic to learn of a recently developed Scottish project to tackle entanglement. Alistair Sinclair of the Scottish Creelff fishermen federation instigated a partnership with NHS British Divers Marine Life Rescue and the Well and Dolphin Conservation Society to prevent large marine life getting stuck in fishing gear. This is all too common a problem and can result in the death of majestic marine creatures such as whales and basking sharks, as well as the destruction of the fishermen's equipment. The project has established new protocols and guidance for Creel fishermen, a shining example of the power and science. Scotland has a proud reputation for spectacular seafood and this will only be enhanced by a robust plan for sustainable fisheries management, bringing future work to the range of sectors in the fishing industry and to onshore processing, often supporting fragile communities. Such sustainable development will also ensure that our marine biodiversity, fragile features and the contribution to tackling climate change are addressed. Everyone in the chamber today and beyond will agree that sustainable management is a virtuous circle, also facilitating future generations of fishermen, as well as our seas themselves, far into the future. Do not take advantage, Mr Finnie, and to be followed by Mike Rumble. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to refer to our national marine plan and it talks about clean, healthy, safe, productive and diverse seas managed to meet the long-term needs of nature in people. Some of the people I want to talk about have been touched on by Rhoda Grant and indeed Stuart Stevenson. They are the EU nationals and their families working in the fishing sector and our earnest wish that they are able to remain in Scotland, contributing as positively as they do often in some of our more fragile communities. Scotland is a fishing nation and I think that there is consensus that the present common fisheries policy is not delivering a sustainable fishing industry in Scotland. That has an effect on our coastal communities. European Greens have suggested reform in the common fisheries policy. Fundamentally, we believe that a whole ecosystem approach to fishery management is required. Fish stocks will only recover for the long term if we also protect spawning and nursery grounds. That will require, as some previous speaker alluded to, designating large areas of water as out of bounds to fishing between 20 and 40 per cent of EU marine areas. We are also keen to see some restraint on the expansion of aquaculture. Someone who represents the Highlands Islands recognise the valuable role that plays in communities. Aquaculture is not the solution to the problem of overfishing the oceans. Greens certainly demand high environmental and health protection standards for aquaculture production, including organic aquaculture. We believe that it can be more environmentally damaging than exploiting wild fisheries. Motion talks about the UK Government's white paper making it clear the intention to allow EU boats access to Scotland's waters as a matter of right. However, whatever happens, fishing nations can only experience long-term benefits by adopting eco-system-based management approaches. Fish are not concerned about our structures whether that is EU, UK, common fishery policy or whatever. It is only going to be with shared management and co-operation within the UK and with neighbouring countries because we must be custodians of our resources and have due regard to science. That is about understanding the risks that fishing has posed and putting in place mechanisms to ameliorate those risks. I am concerned at some of the things that I have heard not necessarily in the chamber today that we get out of the EU and there is going to be free-for-all bonanza. A significant risk is overfishing and discards have been touched on as well. Of course, one anticipated benefit of the discard ban is the potential to increase fisheries revenue and resilience which is to be welcomed. That means more fish remaining in the sea due to improved selectivity both in terms of where and how fishing is undertaken. However, without sensible management, there is no realistic future for fishing at all and that is setting sustainable levels to restore biomass above Minningham MSF. That will challenge the choke species. The vessels must have selective gear ability to fish in the most selective way in order to avoid choking. That has been touched on. The European Maritime Fisheries Fund for the period 2014 to 2020, Scotland was getting 46 per cent of the UK allocation, 111 million euros over seven years. That is going to be a significant loss. In the short time that is left I want to conclude with making a few points on that. The powers in fisheries should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That is going to require co-operation, however we do things. That is about the protection of spawning and nursery grounds. A whole ecosystem approach to fishery management is absolutely required and as was touched on very eloquently by my colleague Claudio Mames, we need to have robust monitoring but also robust enforcement of our fishing. I have Mike Rumbles followed by Mary Todd. I thank Peter Chapman for bringing this motion for debate to Parliament today. As of course in the words of his motion there can be no doubt that the fishing industry is vital to Scotland's culture and it's vital to its economy and is a bedrock of many communities across the country. We couldn't agree more. The Liberal Democrats have long criticised the European Union's common fisheries policy as being remote, overly centralised and bureaucratic. We strongly believe that the industry and other stakeholders must be involved in the development of a plan for sustainable fisheries that works for our Scottish fishermen and that's why we lodged our amendment to the Conservative motion being debated today, even though it wasn't taken for the debate. Had it been taken our amendment didn't take anything out of the Conservative motion but we believe that adding this to the end of their motion would have strengthened it where it needed, in our view, to be strengthened and that's why we'll be supporting Labour's amendment which seeks to do a similar thing. However, this does not mean that we are not critical, I'm afraid, of the Conservative party for the decision to put at risk our access to the markets are fish processing businesses so dearly need. Taking us out of the European single market and indeed the customs union, that's the important one would if Mrs May had her way threatened the markets that our fishing industry so heavily relies on. I'll just give one example. If we're taken out of the customs union that means that our fish processing businesses may face tariff barriers at our borders but the financial barrier isn't the main barrier that faces our fish processes. They've coped remarkably well with the fall in the value of the pound against the euro as a consequence of the vote last summer. While no one likes to pay more taxes our fish exporting businesses have coped with a fluctuating price for their goods and could similarly cope with increased costs at the border if they have to. What is really worrying them is the delay at the border that will occur if they go through added bureaucracy and consequent delays as their goods are processed through customs. Remember, we're talking about real worries about fresh produce and concerns about time delays to markets. Peter Chapman. I thank a member for giving way. Does he recognise and realise that 10 of the biggest 20 markets for our fish are not in the EU at all? Mike Rumbles. I have to say that that would indicate that you don't really compare to the European markets that are so important to our fish. All of the markets, and I would have thought Peter Chapman would realise this. I'm sure he does. I'm sure he does. All the markets are important to us and to threaten one of them with added bureaucracy and delays to our exports is not on, quite frankly. I was saying that they have genuine worries. In recent years we've all seen this. All of us have seen this. The long lines and lorries parked up on motorways in the south of England due to either ferry delays or channel tunnel blockages. Do our fish exporters have worries about being outside the customs union? You bet they have worries about that. Turning to what seems to be, and I'm conscious of time, the main point of conflict between the Conservatives on the S&P in this debate have listened very carefully to the barragging and the shouting and the exchanges. The S&P must not be traded away against other policy issues. It is right, of course, to take part in negotiations with our neighbours in the European Union, but those negotiations must be about fishing and access to markets. It must not be about using our fishermen as a bargaining chip in more general European negotiations. Thank you. Mary Todd, followed by Edward Mountain. Our fishing industry is a vital part of the Scottish economy, and as someone who grew up in Ulipol, still one of Scotland's busiest fishing ports, I understand and value the cultural contribution that fishing communities make in Scotland. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the Conservative motion for today's debate recognised that. It's unusual for me to find anything to agree with in Conservative motions. I think that it's plainly obvious, and I think that it has been so for a very long time, that the common fisheries policy is not fit for purpose. I don't think that it's a good deal for our fishing industry. That is why the SNP has consistently argued for it to be scrapped or for fundamental reform of the policy. That is our party's record on standing up for fishing, and it's a record that goes a long way back. Contrast that with the position of the Tories, the party who took Scotland into the EU and who described the fishing industry as expendable as they did so. I find it quite astonishing that the Tories have the audacity to bring this debate to the chamber today, given their appalling record on Scotland's fishing industry. Their signalling on this issue so far indicates that they are preparing to barter again. Secretary of State for Scotland David Mundell said last year before the EU vote that Brexit will not lead to an end of UK involvement in or with the CFP. Theresa May said in her first major Brexit speech in Lancaster House and I quote, I do not believe that the EU leaders will seriously tell German exporters, French farmers, Spanish fishermen, the young and employed of the Eurozone and millions of others that they want to make them poorer in Britain and to make a political point. Again, in the Brexit White Paper they make it clear that fishing will just be a negotiating chip in the Brexit talks. I quote, given the heavy reliance on UK waters of the EU fishing industry and the importance of EU waters to the UK it is in both our interests to reach a mutually beneficial deal that works for the UK and the EU's fishing communities. Let's continue, more recently the letter from the Tory Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsam to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation signals that the UK Government are preparing to reach a deal over the common fisheries policy. It reads, no decision has yet been made on the extent to which the EU legislation and the common fisheries policy will be incorporated into domestic law. The letter continues that the UK Government are committed to on-going co-operation with other countries over the management of shared stocks and ending discards. It seems very much like the much-hated common fisheries policy could be the only EU policy to survive the Tory's hard Brexit. Presiding Officer, we know that the Tories called the fishing industry expendable on our way into Europe. When I worked in psychiatry we used to say that the best predictor of the future is what has happened in the past. Now folk in our fishing communities are not daft. They know that the Tories are consistent in selling out our fishing communities. This party is consistent on standing up for our fishing communities. Edward Mountain, followed by Kate Forbes. Presiding Officer, when it comes to fisheries it appears that the SNP claimed to have a new vision for the future of Scotland which is going to be beneficial for all. A vision, sadly, based on destroying the best from the past while clinging to the discredited EU policies over which the UK has had little control. Their position in the common fisheries policy epitomises this. A muddy position delivered with the slipperiness of a fresh fish and the glazed and dull unseeing eyes of a fish that's not quite so fresh. Last year the UK democratically voted to leave the EU a decision as parliamentarians we should accept and focus our energies on implementing the changes that will come as a result of that. I don't often quote Socrates but I'm going to now. The secret of change is to focus all of your energy not on fighting the old but on building the new. It seems to me that this is what we should be doing now when it comes to our fishing policy. I'm not pretending that the only way is to cling to the old fisheries policy and under realistically claiming that Scotland can single-handedly change it. Scotland will post-Brexit be in the interesting position of negotiating with all of the UK to come up with the strategies that suits us all. Something that his government has constantly called for yet now they seem to want to reject. The UK Government as Marie Todd said by our Andrew Ledeson and George users have made it clear to Scotland that they will be fully included in the new policy. But when it comes to this it appears that the SNP has sold a saying that's appropriate to them. You can lead a horse to water but you can't always make it drink. Now it's time I believe the SNP to stop playing politics with spin and engage with the future with the UK not cling to the past. The UK's policy as we've already heard from John Finnie must be a basis of sustainability and exploration. We need to talk to the whole of the UK about how to manage universal stocks from the breeding grounds to the place where they're captured. This is not good and sensible management not only good and sensible management but accept this and as Bertie Armstrong I'm sorry I don't have time says it will bring a sea of opportunities it's not visionary it's just simple common sense. When the UK leaves we will regain control of the 200-mile limit we can say who does what where, when and how. Taking back sorry cabinet secretary you don't allow me to interrupt you when you're in the committee so please don't interrupt me now. Taking back the levers of power through another SNP clarion call when it comes to the UK but apparently not when it comes to the EU. It's clear for the EU Fisheries Commissioner has said if you are in the EU you're in the common fisheries policies you can't be in and out as Whiteford and Weir are peddling that's a truly disingenuous flip-flop. So let me help no one doubts the importance of fishing in the UK and especially to Scotland but it could be worth so much more currently some £400 million of the catch was caught by EU boats from within EU waters 58% of the total catch something tells me we're being shortchanged now I'd briefly like to focus on the highlands where the fishing is an important industry for us it creates rural jobs in areas that are often critical to the local economy and I know Presiding Officer you're going to push me to keep to the time but I would like to mention the importance of fisheries to Alipwll, Lockinver, Kishorn and Scrabster not only to fishermen but the services that support them so OK for those reasons I support the proposed motion and call on the SNP Government to do the same there's no flip-flopping on this side of the chamber when it comes to this subject and it's time the slippery approach of this government comes to a halt and they support our fishermen can I say to members that they shouldn't have conversations across the chamber Mr Mountain you should all speak through the chair not directly to the cabinet secretary like that that's fine because it's the last of the open debate speakers thank you Presiding Officer for all their professions of support for our fishing industry I'm surprised that it's taken the Tories 40 long years to recognise how vital fishing is to our culture, our economy and our communities my constituency covers both coasts east and west and I can unequivocally assure the Conservatives that they signed up for and have presided over has been very damaging to our fishermen and to our coastal communities Peter Chapman said that history is irrelevant history is totally relevant when it highlights the hypocrisy and the empty rhetoric of Mr Chapman's party yes it was a conservative leader that signed us up to the common fisheries policy knowing full well that it would lead to and I quote a weaker and less efficient national fleet and all the predictions and the secret briefings 70s and 80s have come true we have weaker fleets we have small boat fishing that has been damaged and there are fewer fishermen the Tories knew it then and they pressed ahead they claim to know it now but we can't even get an assurance from the secretary of state David Mundell that we will be in control of our own fishing after Brexit so I'll remind Conservative members of Fergus Ewing's much needed history lesson under the Conservatives watch fishermen were deemed non-essential under a Tory leader in the 70s they were sold out to the original CFP by a Tory leader in the 80s they were betrayed by a revised CFP under a Tory leader in the 90s and leaving history behind now we've got a Tory leader whose first major Brexit speech mentioned the potential plight of Spanish fishermen but nothing about Scottish fishermen who talks a lot about deals with Europe which are, and I quote mutually beneficial for the UK and EU's fishing communities and who cannot give us any detail on how much of the CFP will still apply after Brexit who can give no clarity on future funding to replace the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund who can give no guarantees on tariff and customs free exports to the EU single market who can give no assurance that EU nationals and their families working in the fishing sector can remain in Scotland and that is not political spin that is what I have heard by speaking to fishermen on the east and the west coast of my constituency the Conservatives claim that they are standing up for the fishing industry well they have had 30 years to do it and they have failed in sharp contrast the SNP has been utterly consistent and vociferous with the common fisheries policy and pressing the UK Government to negotiate a better deal for our fishermen not a new vision as Edward Mountain said but a long standing commitment to end the common fisheries policy some evidence in 2007 our manifesto pledged to continue to work for withdrawal from the common fisheries policy in 2011 our manifesto stated that the CFP is well past its sell by date and in our paper on Scotland and Europe in December which was dismissed by the Conservatives we stated that our preference was that we would not remain within the common fisheries policy and today Fergus Ewing's amendment notes that again very very quickly you cannot have more than four minutes Mark Ruskell giving way would you not acknowledge though that we haven't had the CFP in place for the last 40 years we simply wouldn't have key fish stocks like Cod what I recognise is that the Conservatives have had ample opportunity to negotiate a better deal for our fishermen and have failed to do so rhetoric is one thing but the Tories have had decades to support our fishing industry and only when it becomes politically expedient do we see them lift a finger for our fishing industry come to the closing speeches we have run over time it will eat into the next debate so I'd ask the closing speakers to be shorter than the time allocated and I call Rhoda Grant less than four minutes please thank you I think this debate has been more heat than light and I suppose political posture has played a large part on it however there are some things I think we all agree on one of them is access to the European market Peter Chapman in his opening statement suggested that this would be quite simple to get a free trade deal with the rest of Europe that's not really in keeping with a hard Brexit because Europe will want something back and if we're not going to trade with them at all then it is very likely that they will give us a free trade deal for our fish so it's very important we work with the EU to find a deal that suits them and suits us and our fishing community we also need to be wary of red tape that surrounds imports to the EU as Mike Rumbles and indeed the fishing community have made clear in the past that is their biggest fear if it's difficult to import regardless of what tariffs are in place that then damages that access to that market and that makes things very difficult for our community and indeed those who would want access to our fish in those markets as well there's been a lot of talk about the CFP and that was an awful lot more heat than light I think I understand concerns and obviously the need to rebalance but if we're leaving the EU then the CFP is part of the EU and we will not be subject to that unless we agree some kind of access into the markets Stewart Stevenson give us a history lesson about the CFP quoting a leaflet from back in the 1970s where the SNP were making the point that they did not agree with the CFP well he makes my point he has been arguing, his party has been arguing since the 1970s against the CFP and where are we we are still within the CFP anything they have done has been an absolute failure so how on earth are they going to negotiate changes to the CFP from a position outside the EU when we couldn't and Marie Todd was making the same sort of arguments with the CFP I'm afraid if we're going to be in the European Union we will be in the CFP and that's why the fishing community voted out now obviously those out with the fishing community are looking at a more balanced response to that but I don't know how on earth you can get back into the European Union without being back into the CFP and others made the comments that not everything was wrong with the CFP and I think some of the concerns were access to our fishing grounds but there were aspects of the CFP that included management and protection of stocks and the environment and I think everyone agrees that those aspects are something we will need to replicate in our own domestic policy John Finnie, Mike Rumbles talked about this Claudia Beamish talked about this but Claudia also went a wee bit further and alluded to other issues such as the science what we gain from the EU has shared expertise and we stand to lose that if we can't work with them in the future and also the technical measures I think the EU stand to lose our expertise, our fishing community have led in technical measures and the rest of the EU would lose out on that so it's not so simple to just say CFP bad we need to make sure that some of the good things that are there are replicated for the future and we keep them within our local management because we have to protect things like shared spawning grounds as John Finnie and Edward Mountain talked about as well and I think we also all agree that repatriated powers should be devolved but that doesn't mean that we're not working with others we have to work with others to make that a reality Presiding Officer I know we're short of time we have to protect our fishing industry our stocks and our marine environment that's what we should be looking at going forward that's something that we could agree and unite around I call Michael Russell less than 5 minutes would be appreciated There's no doubt that the Scottish fishing industry is much more important to the Scottish economy, Scottish life than comparatively to the UK much more important than the English fishing industry in terms of its relevant importance to England and therefore I want to very briefly quote three things that indicate missing words in this debate is the Tory motion which acknowledges the potential interesting word to restore control of access to UK waters potential isn't a word of commitment and there isn't a mention of Scottish waters the person who has been talking to the SFF about Scottish waters and Scottish control is not the Tories it is the cabinet secretary here the second words are interesting from Theresa May herself in her Lancaster house speech the Spanish fisherman not Scottish fisherman and in the context of guaranteeing their income and their access and the third interesting Tory quote is from the Brexit white paper and I quoted exactly given the heavy reliance on UK waters of the EU fishing industry it is in our interest to reach a mutually beneficial deal Mr Chapman said at the outset that the key issue was control of Iceland about the control of waters and I agree with him who will control well it won't be Scotland it won't be the Scottish Parliament it won't be Scottish fishermen it will be the UK and this is about UK Tory interests not Scottish fisherman's interests just acknowledgement agreed that's what the Tories say it's about UK Tory interests and the reality is this culture will if we allow it to happen be no I won't take that point Mr Chapman because I want to come to your role in this Mr Chapman in a moment will if we allow it to happen be grabbed by the UK and traded away the reality is that is what has happened for the last 40 years and it's what will go on happening the Tories will always have always traded away Scottish assets for their profit now the reality of this is alas the Mr Chapman understands little of this in the Brexit in Brexit well well I'm going from the evidence of Mr Chapman's own speech in Brexit the UK needs things to trade the kiosk from some EU partners will be fishing access and therefore they need to have that to trade and interestingly enough and Mr Chapman might want to note this in non EU countries a kiosk will be agricultural access Brazilian beef for example I predict that Mr Chapman may have a lot of explaining to do in future months from his farming friends as they realise what is happening here because holding on to agriculture and fisheries is about holding on to assets at Westminster to trade them away and in Brexit too the second thing that is not understood by this group of Tories is that the Scottish membership of the EU will be a matter of negotiation and priorities and the Scottish fishing industry is much more important to Scotland than it is to the UK and that will be the no I won't take an intervention in those circumstances no because we have heard too much from the Tories that is unfortunately not accurate on these matters and it's important that we put on the record the reality of what is happening that this is important to Scotland and will be an important part of our negotiation and thirdly the thing that has been ignored by the Tories is the role of the EU Parliament that will have a yes no vote on Brexit and the historic rights of other countries has already been referred to in the EU Parliament initial motion so the reality is that those people who will in the end vote on this have already declared their position so what is about to happen is that the Tories will be destroyed by this because they will trade away these rights so Presiding Officer there's a list of seven points on which the Tories are wrong they're wrong in terms of history this industry unfortunately was sold out by the Tories at the beginning and is still sold out they're wrong in terms of the CFP because as Stuart Stevenson pointed out it is the SNP that have opposed the CFP again and again they're wrong in terms of access to markets because Scottish fish processors will suffer from their attitude just as inshore fishermen will suffer and I represent a considerable number of inshore fishermen who know that that is the truth they're wrong about the future prospects for Scotland negotiating reform or changes to the CFP it is ironic that the people who tell us what Europe will do are the ones who want to get out of it the Tory position is wrong in terms of the Brexit processes and the UK intentions because they will sell it out it's wrong in its politics because she should be apologising on exploiting and finally Presiding Officer it's wrong for Scottish fishing and I say to the Scottish fishermen don't be fooled by the Tories they're wrong in every regard I call Douglas Ross to wind up this debate below six minutes would be useful please thank you Deputy Presiding Officer I know for many people that fishing is a difficult one the United Kingdom is a whole voted to leave and in my own area of Murray we came closer than any other part of Scotland to vote leave much of that vote came from the coastal communities from Burghead across to Cullin and everything in between these coastal communities have a rich history of fishing that still exists today even if the actual number of boats and those directly involved in the industry has reduced I've had a lot of conversations with local people who supported leave supported it because it was the common fisheries policy and an opportunity to leave it that persuaded them to vote came out of the EU leaving the European Union and the common fisheries policy will mean that Scottish fishing industry has a bright future ahead of it control over Scotland's waters will be restored the Scottish fishing industry can be rebuilt and our many coastal communities can be revived but only when Scotland and the UK are back in control can we create a fishing regime that best suits the needs of the fishing industry Peter Chapman was right to point out that such a vision of prosperity is not possible under the current constraints of the CFP I will give way to the cabinet secretary Fergus Ewing I'm very grateful he says that the Tories believe that Brexit will mean restoration of control what would he say about what David Mundell said in June is the idea that we would just go back to Scotland or Britain controlling British waters is wrong what I will say to the cabinet secretary and I'll come on to some other points from SNP members in a moment is that the most recent letter from Andrea Ledgson which the SNP have tried to create as against the fishermen and against us coming out of the CFP has actually been supported by the fishing industry they are happy with what the Conservative UK Government are doing and they are unhappy I've listened to a lot of what we've heard in this debate about the CFP being unfair and working against the interests of the Scottish fishing industry I've heard it from the Conservative benches and I've heard it from the SNP benches so I will stand here and I'll take an intervention from any SNP MSP who will stand up and say they will support the Scottish Fishermen Federation pledge on the sea of opportunities which I have supported Conservatives have supported will any SNP MSP support that Ailey Whiteford and Mike Rear have supported I give way to get the confirmation from Stuart Stevenson that he has supported that pledge Stuart Stevenson I'm obliged to the member for giving me the opportunity to be unambiguous my support for the SFFC of Opportunity which I brought to this chamber on the 17th of January in a debate no Tory signed the motion supporting the SFF Douglas Ross that the question was clear Will an SNP member stand up and say they have signed the pledge that the SFF are asking all general election candidates to sign and none of them you haven't signed the pledge and that is telling it is telling in this Parliament and it's telling to the fishing communities now our fishing communities know that the Scottish Conservatives have a positive vision of a prosperous, sustainable environmentally friendly Scottish fishing industry we are committed to leaving the EU leaving the CFP and taking back control of the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone that is a message our fishing communities in Murray and across Scotland want to hear they know the Scottish Conservatives are backing them and they know as we've just seen the SNP are not the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is right to highlight the sea of opportunities that await the Scottish fishing industry that exits the European Union Murray Fishermen will benefit if we break from the constraints of the common fisheries policy Murray's coastal communities know that the fishing industry will strive without the straight jacket excuse me Mr Ross my colleague started off this debate by asking people to stop shouting across the chamber at each other could we close it in the same spirit thank you Mr Ross thank you Deputy Presiding Officer and finally as Finlay Carson pointed out the SNP has not done enough to support in recent weeks the SNP position on the CFP has become ever more confusing and today's debate contributions has made that very clear from the SNP benches the First Minister has demanded a second independence referendum and has said it is at the heart of her general election campaign if the SNP are successful at separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom their policy is for Scotland to join the EU as an independent state we've already heard that EU Fisheries Commissioner has made Brussels position absolutely clear on this a new country joining the EU cannot opt out of the CFP there's no halfway measures the SNP would take Scottish fishermen straight back into the common fisheries policy now the Scottish National Party Scottish Government faces a very simple choice today it can either stand with Scotland's fishermen or it can stand against them the SNP can't have it both ways as Rhoda Grant said in her summing up exiting the common fisheries policy the Scottish National Party's commitment to EU membership the Scottish Conservatives are unequivocal in our support for Scottish fishermen and their desire to exit the common fisheries policy so to finish our motion makes it very clear today that we recognise the importance of the fishing industry in Scotland we recognise the crucial role that fishing plays as a bedrock of many communities Brexit offers an opportunity to leave behind the CFP and provide Scotland with a fit for purpose and tailor made fishing policy and perhaps most importantly of all it provides an opportunity to deliver what the sector wants MSPs can stand with the fishing communities in Murray and across Scotland at decision time tonight and vote for a positive future for Scottish fishing by supporting the Conservative motion or they can vote with the SNP and cast off the benefits of leaving the CFP and support going straight back to the EU as an independent Scotland I urge members to vote for a bright future for Scottish fishing reject the SNP's dangerous plans for Scotland taking out of the United Kingdom only to go straight back into the European Union that concludes the debate on fisheries it's now time to move on to the next item of business and as I said earlier we have cut into the time for the next debate so if we can have a quick turn around please