However, we also have to build on processing. We need the processing infrastructure to make sure that the catch that we land adds value and that we then encourage people to have careers in this industry. We have to provide the infrastructure for them to live in those areas as well. Of course, as Lewis MacDonald pointed out, our processors are extremely worried about Brexit, because they are the ones that will have to deal with the trade tariffs and levies if that happens and we go into a backstop arrangement. A quick final plea for Claudia Beamish's European Maritime Fisheries Fund, which Claudia Beamish talked about. She said that she is having to get and leave alive from the Presiding Officer for using first name's apologies. It is an important fund and it will be good if the Cabinet Secretary in summing up could talk about what he foresees taking over from the fund that will help our fishing communities. We all wish the Cabinet Secretary well in those negotiations. Indeed, we hope that they are finished in good time to allow them to go home and do their own Christmas shopping and say to Mary Gougeon that pleasure. We believe that the heart of those talks should be sustainability and making sure that we have fishing available for our future generations. Donald Cameron, for around 11 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It was nice to have more time, rather than less time, indicated from the Presiding Officer's chair. I welcome the opportunity to close for the Scottish Conservatives in this important debate. I note that I closed the same debate for my party during last year's debate. Back then, I said during my speech that the current Brexit negotiations will undoubtedly be a long process to get the right deal that works for the fishing sector in the country and that we must not allow our fishing industry to remain shackled to the common fisheries policy that has scarred coastal communities. I firmly believe that, through that negotiation process, the UK Government has ensured that taking back control of our waters has been at the heart of those negotiations. I do believe that the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration that accompanies it delivers on a promise made to fishing communities right across Scotland, as do the guarantees made by the Prime Minister herself in person. We will be leaving the common fisheries policy. That is more than symbolic. It is a reality that we will not only become an independent coastal state by December 2020, but fundamentally it will be for us to decide who fishes in our waters and on what terms. That is hugely empowering for our fishing communities. As the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has said, the declaration gives the UK the power to assert its position as an independent coastal state with full unfetter sovereignty over our waters and natural resources. I would like to reiterate the remarks that others have made about yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of State, because I think that it is worth repeating. The UK Government have tabled amendments to the fisheries bill, which will ensure that there is a legal obligation on the UK Secretary of State when negotiating a fisheries agreement with the EU to pursue a fair share of fishing opportunities than the UK currently receives under the CFP. The UK Government is also investing additional £37.2 million of extra funding to boost the UK fishing industry during the implementation period on top of existing EMFF funding. That too has been welcomed by the SFF. Stewart Stevenson? Is it not the case that fishermen were promised 100 per cent control? Of course, recognising that having 100 per cent control gives one the opportunity to trade and negotiate with others is something quite different from the phrase that the member has used, a fairer share. It could be argued that a fairer share is 1 per cent more than we currently have. What the fishermen were promised was 100 per cent. Let me quote from the Prime Minister herself on the floor of the House of Commons on 22 November this year. She said that we would be an independent coastal state that control over our waters so that fishermen get a fairer share of the fish in our waters, and we have firmly rejected a link between access to our waters and access to markets. The fisheries agreement is not something that we will be trading off against any other priorities. As I was saying, the UK Government will also create four new schemes comparable to the EMFF to deliver funding for each nation in the UK. In terms of the fisheries bill, I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments that he sees broadly positive outcomes. Unlike the agricultural bill currently in Westminster, I detect a very welcome and constructive attitude from the Scottish Government to the bill. Importantly, the bill will empower the Scottish Parliament to lead on our own scheme. We are devolving more powers to this Parliament. As Edward Mountain mentioned, we will be able to regulate resources to ensure conservation of the maritime environment and marine environment, the Scottish Government will have power over licences and devolved administrations will be able to transpose regulations. I hope that the cabinet secretary acknowledges that when he closes for the Government. There remains a striking contradiction at the heart of the SNP's position on fishing. On the CFP, Mike Russell told the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Select Committee last year that the common fisheries policy has not worked and we need to get alternatives to it, but let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater with the Europe that actually works for us. On the one hand, he wants to lead the common fisheries policy, but on the other hand wants to remain a member of the EU, which includes CFP membership. Or in December 2016, when the cabinet secretary, Fergus Ewing, was quoted as saying that the common fisheries policy has not been a success for Scottish fisheries. I recognise that there are opportunities outside of the EU for our industry. I agree, and I think that there are others across the chamber. In fact, people have been explicit about the flaws in the common fisheries policy. There are flaws that exist by remaining in the common fisheries policy and the possibilities that exist for Scottish fishing when we leave the EU are endless. Yet his Government and the SNP seem hellbent on trying to keep us in the EU and in the CFP. I would like to turn to other issues beyond Brexit that have perhaps been slightly lost during this debate. On the issue of the annual fisheries negotiation, which is the purpose of this debate, we do, as a party, wish the cabinet secretary the best of luck in his role at that meeting and hope that he can achieve positive outcomes for the fishing industry and our coastal communities. Like him, we agree that there is concern among the industry around the reductions in quotas of major stocks. We note that the position of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, in particular, states that the reductions are unhelpful, at least, and that it is really problematic at worst. They come at a time when the landing obligation comes fully into force. At the same time, we recognise the need that we should be able to promote a sustainable fishing industry that works for both fishermen and the environment. As a Highlands and Islands MSP, I know all too well the importance of this. We had a great debate during the Crown State Bill about kelp harvesting. I was inundated with emails from concerned constituents, some of whom were from fishing communities. I know that there are strong feelings around the conservation of our marine environment. Beyond that, I would also like to make a plea, and I believe that there are members across the chamber that have recognised that in their speeches—Alistair Allen and others—that, when we speak of our fishing industry, we ought to acknowledge the areas beyond the North Sea, and we must look at the industry holistically. I know that my North East colleagues will not mind me saying this, but the interests of the area that I represent are slightly different to theirs. Inshore fisheries that concentrate on shellfish are often forgotten about in the debate, but are absolutely critical to the local economy. I accept, and I hope that Tavish Scott will forgive me for venturing out of the deep sea and into the insure that is slightly off the issue of the December negotiations. However, there are almost 1,800 shellfish vessels in the Scottish fishing fleet, which is almost 88 per cent of the total fleet. The main player in this regard is the Prawn and Scallop fleet, which is the mainstay of many remote communities from the Mull of Kintar northwards up the western seaboard. In the western isles, shellfish landings account for some 90 per cent of total landings, with whitefish accounting for the remaining 10 per cent. In our Garland Bute, Creel fishing and Static Scallop fishing are also prominent and, likewise, are contributors to the local economy. It is therefore important that we engage with the totality of that sector when looking at any new legislation on sustainability as they will have a vital role to play, as well as the wider fishing sector. I recall that, in the 2016 manifesto of the SNP, there was a commitment to an insure fisheries bill, and I wonder if, at some point, the cabinet secretary could update the chamber on that. Ultimately, we need a thriving and healthy fishing sector that ensures that stocks remain at sustainable levels and that our waters are protected as much as possible. After all, in 2017, Scottish Festals landed 466,000 tonnes of seafish and shellfish, with a value of over £560 million. I would like to summarise, in a few seconds remaining, what other colleagues have said. Peter Chapman spoke with great authority about the immediate issues. Choke species are a continuing problem, and I am sure that the cabinet secretary is aware of that. However, I remember listening to contributions this time last year about choke species, and there is still, obviously, a real concern around that. I hope that that can be addressed. I was very struck by something that Rhoda Grant said in her speech, which is to remember the health and wellbeing of those in our fishing fleet. It strikes me that we are almost a year on from the tragedy that beset the ship, the Nancy Glen, in Loch Ffine in January this year, which I asked the First Minister about during First Minister's Questions in January this year. That is still a tragedy for the families affected by those deaths. They belong to small community in Tarbet, and far from the security of this chamber, it is so important that we remember those working on our boats in very dangerous conditions sometimes. The other members, Claudia Beamish and Mark Ruskell, spoke about sustainable fishing, and I think that I have hopefully covered that to some extent. In terms of the amendments, we will be supporting the Government's motion, and we will be supporting the Liberal Democrat amendment. In terms of the Labour amendment, regrettably we will not be supporting that. It is our view that we have to wait before committing to how quota is divided up, and it would be premature—and I particularly concentrate on the last sentence of the Labour amendment—in our view that we made any commitments to how that happens at this stage, although we are very mindful, indeed, of the need to promote both new entrants to the industry and smaller community-based vessels. Likewise, with the Green amendment, we are very sympathetic. We condemn any kind of illegal fishing on those benches and, of course, advocate for the use of increased technology if that can assist that battle. However, as other colleagues have mentioned, we feel that it should apply to all vessels and not just Scottish vessels. To meet the point that was made by Mr Ruskell, we believe that, if we can operate international agreements, especially on crime and policing, without requiring to be a member of the EU—which we do—that can occur in terms of something like illegal fishing. In conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, slightly over time, the Scottish Conservatives wish that the cabinet secretary will, in his role at negotiations, strongly believe that there is a benefit to leaving the European Union for our fishermen rather than keeping them in the CFP. We must take advantage of the benefits that will result, and the fact that we will become an independent coastal state, we will decide who fishes in our waters and what terms. That is the prize that we hope everyone can get behind. I call Fergus Ewing. Up to 12 minutes, cabinet secretary, will take us to decision time. Unless my risk-ma-take is flawed, I believe that this is the 20th fisheries debate that we have had. I have thoroughly enjoyed the contributions of members across the chamber. In particular, if I may say so, from some of us who have been around since 1999, including ourselves, I hesitate to use the phrase old hands, but we have benefited from the experience of several members who have participated in the debates over many years and have built up a knowledge and understanding of the issues involved. I am very grateful for the wishes from across the chamber, the good wishes to pursue success in the current negotiations. The debate is first and foremost about that work and that is the main theme of the debate. Inevitably, understandably and quite properly, members use the opportunity to raise all sorts of issues on fishing. That is absolutely fine. I will try to turn to as many of them as I can and address the key points. Before doing so, I want to touch on some of the other issues that are involved in the negotiations. As a responsible Government, we have to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the interests of marine industries and coastal communities. It cannot always be assumed that the UK Government in the negotiations, either in December or throughout the year, will necessarily pursue Scotland's interests. Sometimes it may not do so, sometimes it may be reluctant to do so, and on other occasions it may be reluctant to do so with sufficient vigor from our perspective. For example, at this year's EU-Norway talks, the UK Government has once again been all too willing to use Scottish blue-whiting in exchange for Arctic cod from Norway. That is despite the assurances from the UK Government that their focus would be to restrict the use of blue-whiting in favour of other currency stocks and prioritise inward transfers of North Sea stocks at this critical time. As we have heard on many occasions, not one single kilogram of Arctic cod comes to Scotland. Rather, 100 per cent of the benefit goes to a single UK-based, non-UK-owned company. To rub salt in the woodland rather than fishing at all, that company then swaps it with other countries for fish that it then sells back to Scotland. Something that fellow old hand Tavi Scott spelled out in his speech. I thought that it was worth making the point. Without malice towards my colleagues in the UK Government, I have enjoyed, I think, a workman-like relationship with George Eustace, who has attended the last two years of negotiations. We approach it in a constructive fashion, but it would be very naive to assume that just because we are in the UK, that means that the UK delegation always see absolutely eye to eye with our perspective—they don't, quite frankly—and recognising that is important for members. I have been, since having the privilege of being Scotland's fisheries minister, committed to getting the job done. In the first year in 216, where we were met with the challenges of the landing obligation, as many members, most recently Donald Cameron has mentioned, I ensure that we received all eligible top-ups to help our fleet to succeed. We also ensure that the science industry survey work on west of Scotland herring could continue by securing a rollover of the survey total allowable catch, having faced zero catch advice. Other achievements include the introduction of flexibility provisions for Haddock and Ling, which allowed the transfer of quota between the west of Scotland and the North Sea. Interarea transfers are a very important tool that can be used in order to address the problems arising from the landing obligation, namely choked species. Domestically, I challenged George Eustace to bring to an end the decade of top slicing of North Sea whiting that our industry has endured. I expect that this year that practice will end. I have drawn attention to Mr Eustace to the importance of doing so in a letter that I sent off to him just this week. Last year, we had welcome increases in the five main North Sea stocks of Cod Haddock whiting saith and nephrops. This year, those same stocks are facing reductions with the exception of saith. However, there is welcome use on the west coast after a large cut of the nephrops quota last year, which I know caused great concern in the west coast. We now look forward to an increase in that same TAC. That highlights the unpredictable nature of those world-face stocks and our need to be able to respond as necessary. We have overcome a few such hurdles in the talks that have already concluded. We have, for example, found solutions for North Sea hake, linked to an increase in next year's quota and utilising quota flexibility between the North Sea and the north-western waters. I could add that part of that work related to meeting that I had with Commissioner Vella in Brussels was around June, when we made the point that there was a very serious choke issue in relation to North Sea hake, where we felt that the commission's assessment of the signs had not followed the stocks, which had migrated north in very large numbers. We have made some progress on some of those issues, but it remains that we face, as members have said across the chamber, a very difficult year, with a very challenging set of scientific advice, which, as usual, we must respect when negotiating outcomes. Let me turn to some of the issues raised in the debate. I think that the landing obligation in choke species is perhaps the main one, and I would like just to say a few words about that, which I hope will clarify the approach that we take. First of all, it is important to say that we are committed to sustainable fishing. Stewart Stevenson made the point very clearly that the current days fishermen are stewards of fish for future generations. Stewart Stevenson made that point and he is absolutely right. Every fisherman knows that if they overfish now, they are taking away their children's inheritance. Fishmen themselves understand the importance of sustainability and the principles behind the landing obligation to reduce waste, to improve accountability, to safeguard sustainability, as Mr Ruskell, for example, mentioned, is absolutely correct. That means that we have to respect the signs. As Tavi Scott said, we have to be ready to question, to challenge, to scrutinise, to carefully examine the signs. I was very interested in his remarks about suggestions that might improve that. I would say that, in fact, there is already quite a lot of good work going on, where ICES advice, for example, is quality assured by its own processes. Marine Scotland scientists are at the heart of international science effort and they are well respected. Marine Scotland supports an ICES interbenchmark in 2019 to take a fresh look at the macro science and data, but his remarks were very positive and thought-provoking. In order to tackle choked species, we need to devise solutions that are practical. I believe that those solutions exist. They need to be solutions that are not so complex and complicated that fishermen cannot understand. The issue is serious. We share industry concerns about the need for solutions to be in place. There are a variety of solutions such as swap, by-catch, technical measures, inter-area flexibility and others. Officials held a meeting with stakeholders on 6 September to work through options, and Marine Scotland officials and others attended a meeting of the FMAC, the Fisheries Management and Conservation Group on 13 November. All those measures are taken extremely seriously. We are in the Scottish Government to resolutely focus on the day job. That is because it is extremely important that we perform it. I am acutely aware—as members have said during the debate—that the choked species issues are perhaps the greatest practical challenge that we face. I just wanted to spend a little time to assure members that not only are we taking that as our top priority for the talks next week in Brussels, but we have laid the groundwork and we have achieved some success on matters that looked even worse several months ago throughout the year. I think that Rhoda Grant made a very thoughtful speech. I am inclined, albeit that we have some questions about the technical details of the amendment. Nonetheless, in the spirit of showing that the idea that we support new entrants is very important, it is time that we recognise in principle that that is something that we should be doing. Therefore, we are happy to support Labour's amendment. In relation to Mr Ruskell's amendment, although there are some infelicitations and draftsmanship, I made it clear in my comments to Claudia Beamish last week. In a speech that I made in October when I made the announcement, I said that tracking and monitoring is a good thing. It is a good thing for conservation and for fishermen. Tracking is where the vessel is and monitoring is what they are doing at the time. Therefore, the vast majority of fishermen who, as many members have said, are law-abiding and carrying out vital work to their communities have nothing to fear and everything to gain. I suppose that I have to mention Brexit. It does spoil the pre-Christmas spirit to raise the Brexit blues, but I think that what has happened now is that the Conservatives have over-promised and they are now under-delivering. That is the nub of the issue at the end of the day. The spectacle down south of what is happening at Westminster, the display of disarray, is now so acute and evident that it is almost painful and embarrassing, quite frankly, to watch. In Scotland, we are getting on with the job. I was very pleased that members of all parties wished as well in the negotiations next week. I thank them for those good wishes and myself and my officials shall do everything that we can to get the best possible deal for Scotland, our fishermen, our fishing communities around the coast. Thank you very much. That concludes our debate on sea fisheries and end-of-year negotiations. We will return straight to decision time. The first question this evening is that amendment 15096.4, in the name of Peter Chapman, which seeks to amend motion 15096, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on sea fisheries and end-of-year new negotiations, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15096.4, in the name of Peter Chapman, is yes, 26, no, 83. There was one abstention. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that amendment 15096.1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, who seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division again. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15096.1, in the name of Rhoda Grant, is yes, 84, no, 26. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. Our next question is that amendment 15096.3, in the name of Mark Ruskell, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a vote. Members may cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15096.3, in the name of Mark Ruskell, is yes, 62, no, 31. There were 17 abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 15096.2, in the name of Tavish Scott, which seeks to amend the motion in the name of Fergus Ewing, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. And the final question is that motion 15096, in the name of Fergus Ewing, as amended, on sea fisheries and end of year negotiations, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are not agreed. We will move to a division. Members may cast their votes now. And the result of the vote on motion 15096, in the name of Fergus Ewing, as amended, is yes, 67, no, 26. There were 17 abstentions. And the motion, as amended, is therefore agreed. And that concludes decision time. We'll move now to members' business, in the name of Angela Constance, on the 60th anniversary of the ultrasound scanner invented in Scotland. And we'll just take a few moments for members and the ministers to change seats.