Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Official Report 898KB pdf

---

Fishing

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S5M-02438, in the name of Stewart Stevenson, on the sea of opportunity campaign. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament commends the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation’s (SFF) A Sea of Opportunity campaign; considers that full control over fishing in the offshore economic zone represents an opportunity to reinvigorate coastal communities; recognises that appropriate conservation measures must also be in place for all fishing activity; welcomes indications that arrangements for ownership and exploitation of existing quota will not be changed to adversely affect existing investments in them; believes that the ownership structures and economic benefits derived from new quota arising from full control of the offshore economic zone must be of value to adjacent communities, and notes calls on all political parties to consider whether they can agree with the SFF that UK fishing interests can best be protected in upcoming negotiations by the lead minister being from Scotland.

17:08  

I am pleased to bring to Parliament the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation’s sea of opportunity campaign, and I would like to recognise Bertie Armstrong, who is the chief executive of the SFF, and Mike Park, of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, who are in the public gallery.

Since the outset, the European Union common fisheries policy has been opposed by our fishermen, my political colleagues in the Scottish National Party and others in other political parties. Indeed, my first speech here in Parliament in 2001 was on the CFP. In theory, the CFP protects the long-term interests of those who fish, those who eat fish, local economies that are dependent on fish and the environment on which our fish depend.

In practice, however, its effects have been very different. First, when the United Kingdom signed up to the CFP, it signed away rights to fish in our own waters. Today, the majority of the fish that are caught there are caught by fishing vessels from other jurisdictions, and the majority of our fish are landed elsewhere.

Secondly, although those who eat fish can generally buy the fish that they want, the majority of it is imported. That is a very strange situation when our waters are the most productive in Europe.

Thirdly, the economic benefit to our communities has been much less than it should have been. In England, major fishing ports are all but gone and the fishing rights that remain are largely in foreign hands. Although Scotland has fared somewhat less badly, it has been in Norway and the Faroes that we have seen much of the onshore growth in recent years.

Finally, the chaotic fishing councils each year—I have attended a couple—have not involved fishermen to any meaningful degree. They are the people with real knowledge, yet they are not involved in the dynamic decision-making process, which has often left everyone scratching their heads to justify the outcomes.

The SFF’s a sea of opportunity campaign lays out the opportunities that are available to our catching sector as we look to leave the common fisheries policy. For our processing sector, there are both opportunities and risks. Last week’s report of increased losses at Shetland Catch, largely due to the closure of the Russian market, shows the dangers of any restriction of access to markets. Even the worst-case scenario should leave us able to sell into the EU, but on what terms? We have yet to discover that.

However, for our catchers, our gaining control of our waters should be a win-win-win and an opportunity to do things very differently. We have to protect the investments that our fishermen have made in quota under the existing system, but when new quota becomes available, we must look at how to manage that in a way that shares the benefit between the catchers and the communities that, by their proximity to the relevant waters, have a proper interest in it. That will require hard thinking and collaborative working. I do not have the answers; we all have yet to find what might work.

On the day when we leave the CFP, we need to have a new management regime in place. It might be reasonable to make changes over time, as disruption at one point is in no one’s interests. We need to have agreements in place with other states, but this time we need to make sure that we make the decisions and keep control of how fishing is undertaken in our waters. A key part of that is to ensure that the management regime protects stocks for future generations of fishermen and fishing-dependent communities. I am frequently told of the difficulties that sons of fishermen have in becoming established in the business. With increased control, we have an opportunity to control differently and differentially the access to quota without which no new skipper can reasonably fish.

Fishermen are independent individuals who often refuse to share their catching data even with members of their own family. They compete with each other as well as with the elements, management regimes, the hunted fish and—until now—the CFP, so it is a substantial achievement on the part of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation to have reached an agreed position that reflects the opportunities and risks that are presented by our leaving the CFP. It is working with our Government and the UK Government in a more effective way than for many years, and it is ensuring that we as parliamentarians are informed.

However, delivery of the prospective control of our waters in a way that suits our interests is not a given. In the 1970s, our rights were traded away to achieve the wider agreement to enter the then European Economic Community. We knew nothing of that deal until it was done and it was too late. That danger exists this time as well, not because of malice on the part of the UK Government but because of expediency, the need to reach a deal and the comparatively small economic contribution of fishing compared with, say, Nissan in Sunderland, which seems to be positioned for special treatment. The UK also faces a significant resource bottleneck that means that allocating civil service expertise to getting the best outcome for fishing might not be top of the priorities.

My motion asks that political parties “consider”—I am not seeking their commitment to support the idea, yet—whether the UK’s and, in particular, Scotland’s fishing interests might not be best served by a Scottish minister leading for the UK in the forthcoming negotiations.

Today’s speech by the UK Prime Minister delineated potential difficulties for Spanish fishermen through loss of market access to the UK while saying nothing whatever about the position of Scottish and English fishermen. That illustrates a worrying disengagement from the real-life issues that affect our fishing industry and gives an astonishing insight into how little our industry is on her radar.

We need to avoid our prospective rights being traded away as they were 40 years ago. Having our minister at the table would be our insurance. It would not be a free ticket, because they would have to negotiate for the agreed position of the whole of the UK and not solely for Scottish interests.

I again congratulate the SFF, wish it well and trust that we in the Parliament can all support its efforts. Locally in Banffshire and Buchan Coast, which—with Shetland—is the heart of our fishing industry, I recognise that all the candidates who stood in this year’s election voted remain in the referendum in June but I now expect, as fishermen do, that all of us will work for the best possible result from our leaving the CFP. Fishing has been central to the history of many Scottish communities, and it must be central to the future of those communities too.

17:16  

Stewart Stevenson’s motion is an important one, especially to our shared patch along the Buchan coast. He has rightly spoken of the incredible contribution that fishing towns such as Fraserburgh and Peterhead make to our rural economy. There is much in his motion that I agree with, and his speech was a testament to the impact and importance of the fishing industry in the north-east.

In last month’s debate on the end-of-year fisheries negotiations, I spoke about the incredible work that our fishermen have done to keep fishing sustainable. That is why I fully agree with the SFF’s call for us to have full control of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone to boost the fishing industry not just around Scotland but in all UK waters. We know that 60 per cent of the fish that are caught in our waters are landed by foreign vessels, and we know that our fishermen are keen to get out there and get more of that catch for their benefit and that of their communities, so I am confused by the Scottish National Party’s position. Mr Stevenson will be fully aware that it is the SNP policy of remaining in the EU and in the disastrous CFP that prevents Scotland’s fishing industry from enjoying the benefits of exclusive economic zone control.

Will the member take an intervention?

Do we do that?

You can—and I will give you some time back.

Well, I will, then.

I would like to provide clarity on the SNP’s position. I direct Peter Chapman to the words on the CFP of our then leader, Donald Stewart, which are reported in a House of Commons Hansard from July 1982. They indicate a very different position on the CFP from the one that Peter Chapman suggests. I also direct him to the work of Allan Macartney in the European Parliament before his death in the late 1990s, which also shows that the CFP has throughout its history been rigorously, vigorously and consistently opposed by the SNP.

You will get your time back, Mr Chapman, so do not concern yourself.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

I totally reject that intervention, because we are talking about now; we are not talking about the position away back in the 1980s. It is absolutely clear that, right now, the position of the SNP Government is to remain part of the EU and of the CFP. There is nothing that Mr Stevenson can say that changes that.

A cynic might argue that this evening’s debate represents a desperate attempt by the SNP to win back some credibility. Its leader’s obsession with talking up a second independence referendum and remaining in the EU is precisely what fishermen did not vote for and do not want, so it is hardly surprising that SNP support is disappearing from fishing communities like sna aff a dyke.

On Friday I spoke with Bertie Armstrong at the SFF, and he was crystal clear to me: the UK, as the member state, must negotiate our exit from the EU. It is obvious to me from the last part of his motion that Stewart Stevenson does not understand the SFF’s position.

I recently led a delegation that met with Andrea Leadsom and George Eustice, and I am confident that they fully understand the unique opportunities that we have here in Scotland. George Eustice, as our UK Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has a wealth of experience to draw from in contributing to the whole country’s negotiating stance. I assure my constituents, and fishing communities across Scotland, that both ministers stressed that fishing would be protected and that they recognise the huge prize that could be won.

As Theresa May set out today, now is the time for the whole country to unite behind getting the best deal possible from Brexit and making it work for everyone. To that end, I encourage Scottish Government ministers—as I have in the past—to engage fully with their UK counterparts, to stop trying to increase division and hostility between Westminster and Holyrood and to engage positively, for once.

The Prime Minister has made her position plain by explaining that all the devolved nations will be able to provide input for the Brexit process. It is vital for our fishing industry that this SNP Government engage with that process to make a success of Brexit.

On a final note, the SNP’s “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, which was published less than a month ago, specifically says:

“As a government we remain committed to EU membership as an independent nation—and are proud to say so.”

I would be shocked if many of our fishermen agree with that sentiment.

17:21  

I thank Stewart Stevenson for bringing this important issue to Parliament today. I also want to thank the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation for its promotion of the sea of opportunity campaign. I think that the SFF is right to say that although Scotland and its fishing industry face an uncertain future, we should be seeking out opportunities when they arise, and that will include the opportunity to seek out better arrangements for the Scottish fishing industry.

There is clear potential for an improved arrangement for our fishing industry and our fishing communities. Regardless of what else the future may hold politically, we will be negotiating our relationship with the EU in some shape or form. That means that we will have the opportunity to negotiate a new arrangement for the fishing industry to replace the common fisheries policy, which is clearly not a fair arrangement for the Scottish fishing industry and Scotland’s fishing communities.

I am hopeful that our fishing industry can be better off when those negotiations are over, but that outcome is by no means guaranteed. The fact that there is an opportunity does not necessarily mean that it will be seized upon.

I want to remind Conservative members that back in the 1970s, when the common fisheries policy was being negotiated, the UK Government’s negotiators were willing to barter away the interests of Scotland’s fishing industry. We must remember that our fishing industry then was described as “expendable” during those negotiations. Let me do as Peter Chapman asked and bring us right back up to today. It is often said that the past is the best predictor of the future. Today we have had a strong hint of what the future might hold for our fishing communities. It is notable that Theresa May chose to mention the interests of Spanish fishermen in her keynote speech. Many people in my community will share my fear that that is an indication of readiness yet again to trade away our interests.

The reality is that that the UK fishing industry is, for the most part, a Scottish industry. We have bountiful seas: I have mentioned before that Shetland, in my region, lands more fish than England, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.

Therefore, the prospect of this matter, which is of such importance to the Scottish economy and to Scottish communities, being handled by a UK Government that has such a consistent track record of letting Scotland and our industries down fills me with dread. If negotiations are mishandled, our fishing industry could be worse off than it is at present. We could retain large parts of the common fisheries policy while missing out on aspects of EU membership that have clearly benefited the industry.

I am pleased that the Scottish fishing industry is united in its insistence that fishery regulations incorporate a commitment to sustainable harvesting, with appropriate conservation measures established for all fishing activity. Many of our stocks are now certified under the gold standard of the Marine Stewardship Council, and we do not seek any departure from the established quota-setting process, which is based on scientific advice.

Working together to protect the marine environment and manage fish stocks will deliver Scotland’s ambition of a productive and healthy marine environment that supports thriving coastal communities and a profitable fishing industry.

Another benefit that we have had from the EU is the free movement of people, which is undoubtedly vital for many of the fish processing businesses, particularly in island communities, where there is low unemployment and no people to take those jobs if we cannot attract EU immigrants. Almost all of the shellfish that is landed in the west Highlands, which is where I come from, goes direct to European markets. It is vital that negotiations that primarily affect Scotland’s fishing industry are handled by a minister who is a representative of Scotland and who is, crucially, accountable to the people of Scotland.

17:25  

I welcome Bertie Armstrong and Mike Park to the public gallery as my guests this evening.

I am pleased that, in bringing the motion to Parliament, Stewart Stevenson has finally acknowledged that Brexit allows us to regain control over fishing in the offshore economic zone and presents an unparalleled opportunity to reinvigorate coastal communities in the north-east and across the UK. It is a refreshing change of pace from the negativity and short-sightedness that we have come to expect from SNP members on this issue.

The decline in the fishing industry has been steady but clear since the EU’s common fisheries policy and its quotas came into existence. Landings of fish in the UK have more than halved since the 1970s, from 948,000 tonnes to 451,000 in 2014. The CFP has been destructive to the fishing industry, particularly in the north-east, and gravely unfair to hard-working fishermen. It will come as no surprise to members to hear that I, therefore, fully support the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation’s sea of opportunity campaign to assert control over our 200-mile exclusive economic zone under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and to establish a fairer and more appropriate share of catching opportunities for fishermen in the UK.

Will the member give way?

I would like to make some progress.

Indeed, the House of Commons Exiting the European Union Committee heard evidence that the UK fishing industry might double its catch when we take back control of our waters. Brexit can herald the renaissance of our fishing industry for generations to come.

The SNP Government, however, seems to be entirely out of step with the fishing industry. It continues to wax lyrical on the necessity of the single market to the industry, and yet Bertie Armstrong has said

“we don’t need a single market”,

especially since Brexit presents great opportunities in gaining access to new markets such as India. One has to question whether the SNP knows what is better for the industry than the fishermen themselves.

The member talks about the views of fishermen. I do not claim to speak for all fishermen, but is the member aware that a number of fishermen in my constituency have said to me that although they took a different view of Brexit from mine, they are appalled by the prospect of not being in the single market? How does the member react to that? Has he spoken to any fishermen about it?

I just quoted the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, who said

“we don’t need a single market”

and that there are opportunities for all fishermen to explore the new and growing markets in other parts of the world where they can sell their fantastic produce. That is what the Parliament should endorse.

To address the final part of Mr Stevenson’s motion, it is simply the wrong time to raise the question. Article 50 has not yet been invoked. To start deciding which ministers should represent us is almost like arguing over which bedroom you want before you have bought the house.

The interests of Scottish fishermen should always be regarded as a priority, but that is not equivalent to having a Scottish Government minister lead the negotiations, given that the heft of the exclusive economic zones involve other parts of the UK. The SNP should stop trying to score political points to the detriment of this most crucial Scottish industry.

In his speech, Stewart Stevenson failed to acknowledge regional candidates. The fishing industry unequivocally voted for Brexit. Furthermore, research from the University of East Anglia shows that around 54 per cent of Stewart Stevenson’s own constituency of Banff and Buchan voted for Brexit, like me.

How do you know?

Perhaps now is the perfect time for Stewart Stevenson to unshackle himself from divisive and hostile SNP rhetoric and to start standing up for the people in his constituency, who elected him to this Parliament.

Thank you.

Mr Stevenson, I know that it is difficult, but could you contain yourself a wee bit?

17:30  

I congratulate Stewart Stevenson on securing this debate, which pays tribute to the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation’s work on behalf of its members to promote sustainable fisheries in Scotland.

I did not agree with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation about leaving the EU—indeed those of us who did not want Brexit still harbour regret and a real and abiding worry about where Brexit leaves us—but I agree that we must all secure the best possible deal for the UK and thereby for Scotland.

Although we disagree that a Scottish Government minister should lead negotiations on behalf of the UK, we agree that the Scottish ministers must be involved. If we believe in democracy, we cannot believe that Scottish ministers should lead negotiations on behalf of the whole of the UK. If they did that, it would create a democratic deficit for fishers in England, Northern Ireland and Wales. How can their interests be represented by someone who was not elected by them and is therefore not democratically answerable to them? We would not stand for that, so why should we expect them to do so?

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

May I make progress?

Everyone needs their voice heard and, whether we like it or not, the UK Government is elected by the whole of the UK and has a direct democratic link to the whole of the UK. It is therefore incumbent on the UK Government to represent the interests of the whole of the UK, as the nation state.

If we are to get the best outcome from the negotiations, we must also involve the devolved Governments. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has said:

“We intend to secure the best possible deal for Scottish fishers, irrespective of constitutional developments, and believe that the two governments working together would produce the best possible outcome for fishers on both sides of the border.”

I absolutely agree that our Governments should be working together for that.

When Jack McConnell represented the UK at a European council, on behalf of all the countries and Governments of the UK, was that illegitimate? For that matter, was it illegitimate for many of the current ministerial team to do similarly, as they have done? There is nothing novel whatever about such an approach.

What I said in no way contradicts that. Scottish ministers should be involved; what I said is that they cannot democratically represent other parts of the UK. It is for the UK to lead and for Scottish Government ministers to be there to make an input and to offer support, where relevant. The process has to be led by UK ministers, because we must abide by the constitution of our country.

The SNP Government is using the threat of an independence referendum in its Brexit negotiating position. I really dislike that. It is a bit like a spoilt child who says, “I’ll take my ball away if you don’t play by my rules.” This is a job not for spoilt children but for mature adults, working together for the good of our nation. I welcome the ruling out of another referendum this year, but we need to remove the threat for a generation. It is important that that happens.

Of course, there are opportunities for the UK from Brexit. We will have more control of the seas to the 200-mile limit, and we hope that in that regard the powers to manage fisheries will remain devolved. We will also have the opportunity to manage the asset better, for the good of our coastal communities. We must bear in mind the fact that fishing traditions differ a lot between communities and we must ensure that all coastal communities have access to good-quality fisheries.

That is about not just where we fish but how we fish. Our fishers have been at the forefront of developing sustainable fishing methods, but we need to acknowledge that often that has been in response to European fisheries restrictions. We should continue the good work even if the stick has been removed; the carrot is a sustainable, efficient fishery for ourselves and future generations. It is also in fishers’ interest to maintain stocks for commercial purposes.

The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, and indeed all Scots, want both their Governments to work together to maximise the benefits and diminish the challenges of Brexit. It is incumbent on us all to work together to achieve that.

17:35  

I, too, welcome the Stewart Stevenson-Bertie Armstrong axis, which has been recreated for the purposes of the debate.

If anyone was in any doubt about the feeling in the industry on what has happened in the past, they should have been in Scalloway on Friday, because it was the day of the Scalloway fire festival, and this year’s guizer jarl Hakon Magnusson was actually Victor Laurenson, who in his day job is skipper of the Radiant Star. It was not so much Victor who gave me what for on the ills of the common fisheries policy, but his father Bert, who fished for many years out of Hamnavoe in Shetland and who has a legion of stories about the iniquities of a policy that has not worked.

That is why, as colleagues from across the chamber have said, the fishing industry, pretty well to a man, voted to leave the European Union. A lot of Scots voted differently, but the fishing industry voted to leave. We can bandy around figures on different areas, but I have no doubt that, in Shetland, most of those in the industry wanted out of a policy that has not worked. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the three most dangerous words in the English language are “common fisheries policy”—it is not common, it has never been about fish and it has certainly never been a policy.

I hope that there is a sense of realism about the future and what is about to happen, not just in our industries but in politics. The Prime Minister today cited French farmers, German exporters and Spanish fishermen. By definition, gentlemen—and ladies—the reality is that the industry will now be a bargaining chip in what will happen over the coming years. The Tories have form on that. I am not old enough to remember it, but that happened in the 1970s, and we are right back in the same place again. I cannot conceive how anyone can be confident about that at all. If the Government of the day in London can cut a deal with Nissan of which we have no knowledge or detail, heaven help us when it gets to the point of Spanish access to the North Sea versus the right of the city of London to trade people—it is people, because that is how bankers operate—around Europe. We need to be very clear about that.

We have no idea what the negotiating position is, because Theresa May carried on the running commentary and gave indications on some issues but not on others. However, whatever negotiating position is established, it is vital that we know where fishing stands before article 50 is triggered at the end of March and negotiations start.

I agree with the member’s sentiments. Given what he has said about the negotiating situation that we are in, which I agree with, does he feel that one of the biggest risks facing the fishing industry is the sheer overwhelming priority that the UK Government appears to be giving, above all industrial and fishing considerations, to ending the freedom of movement of people?

There is absolutely no doubt that the fishing industry needs people. There are men—on the whole, they are men—on many a Shetland boat from not just the European Union or eastern Europe but other parts of the world. Again, we have no detail on the immigration policy, as Ken Clarke, who was cited in the earlier debate, said on the news just now. If it is a blanket and harsh immigration policy, that will damage the fishing industry and many industrial sectors across the UK.

Mr Stevenson remarked on the different aspects of the sectors. He is right about the catching sector, although I think that there is a difference between the pelagic and the white-fish sectors. The white-fish industry needs access to European markets. I hope that even Bertie Armstrong would concede that the single European market that is used by our white-fish industry, not just in Lerwick but in Peterhead and on the west coast, is and will be essential.

I suspect that the future of the pelagic industry is now more tied up with the pronouncements of the president elect of the United States and his relationship with Putin, which affects Russia and Crimea, as it is with anything that will happen with Brexit in the next two years.

I have a feeling that Mr Armstrong should have been in the debate, as he has been referred to so often.

17:39  

I welcome the debate, which is important. I also welcome our fishing representatives to the chamber.

There is much in Mr Stevenson’s motion that, like my Conservative colleagues, I support. As has been mentioned, the fishing industry is the economic bedrock of many of our coastal communities, particularly in the north-east of Scotland. However, the fishing sector is also important in my constituency.

Kirkcudbright is home to one of the most important fishing ports in the country. Indeed, it is the biggest port for scallop landings, with more than 3,800 tonnes being landed annually. West Coast Sea Products employs more than 150 people locally, which makes it one of the biggest employers in my area. In addition, the company exports more than 90 per cent of its product to Europe, particularly France. I have no doubt that, following the Brexit negotiations, it will still be able to export its products and benefit from some of the opportunities that will flow from being outside the European Union.

As the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation spells out, 61 per cent of what will become the UK’s exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, is Scottish and contains some of the most productive, valuable and diverse fisheries that are to be found anywhere. That puts Scotland in a unique and enviable position, which makes it even more important that we get the best deal from the forthcoming negotiations. However, as I have said before, to get the best deal, Scotland needs the Scottish Government to get around the table with the UK Government, put its shoulder to the wheel, accept that the UK, not Scotland, is the member state and contribute constructively to the team UK approach to the negotiations. We must work hard together as a team to get the best deal.

That is exactly what the Scottish fishing industry is doing in its excellent sea of opportunity campaign. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has set out its wish list, which includes the power to establish a more effective and reactive fisheries management system, the freedom to explore new markets for seafood in rapidly expanding economies outside the EU and a fairer and more appropriate share of the catching opportunities for the Scottish fishing industry within our waters. As the federation points out, Scotland’s vessels account for a minority of the total tonnage and value taken from what would become the UK’s EEZ.

Scotland’s fishermen are optimistic about their future post Brexit, and Conservative members are equally optimistic for the industry. Many of the people who work in it were the most ardent supporters of Brexit and made their case eloquently in debates up and down the country in the run-up to last summer’s referendum. In many ways, that is not difficult to understand given the red tape and rough time that they have had to endure.

Only the UK Government can negotiate with the EU and it is the UK as a member state that must do the best job. We have a duty to support that important Scottish industry as the negotiations proceed, and I urge the Scottish Government to do exactly that.

17:43  

I congratulate Stewart Stevenson on bringing the issue to the Scottish Parliament in a debate that I can best characterise as having been spirited and intermittently informative.

I have had the great pleasure of working closely with Bertie Armstrong, Mike Park and their colleagues in the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, and have done my best to understand the diverse and complex issues that are involved. I start off this new year by stating that I am determined to work with all parties and members to advance the interests of Scotland’s fishing industry and its fishermen.

I entirely endorse the remarks that Stewart Stevenson made. The CFP has been cumbersome, unduly burdensome on the Scottish fishing industry and intensely disliked by fishermen for what it has done to them over the years, but there are more facts that we need to bring into the debate.

I was pleased to lead the Scottish delegation at last year’s negotiations, at which, together with our able officials, we achieved 33 of our objectives. One more was partially achieved and three were not achieved. We achieved an extra £47 million of opportunity for the fishing industry and we secured full eligible quota top-ups to support the phasing of stocks in to the discard ban.

We made significant political gains with the EU for a new flexibility arrangement in relation to where Scottish vessels are able to fish for haddock. That reduces the risk of choke—an extremely serious problem that has perhaps not been mentioned enough in the debate—and it reduces operating costs.

We also made a significant and really hard-won political gain, based on my workmanlike relationship with George Eustice, in agreeing that the UK Government would top-slice the UK Arctic cod quota—which was purchased, incidentally, with Scottish blue whiting at EU-Norway talks—in order to create a UK pool of swap currency to bring in additional North Sea quota where there are risks of choke under the landing obligation.

I will not read out all the rest of the fruits of that negotiation, but it is reasonable to point out that we fought hard for Scotland’s fishing industry. My modus operandi is to work as constructively as possible with everybody else, including George Eustice. That is exactly what I did, and I hope that it is the right approach. I will certainly continue with it.

We share the SFF’s view that the CFP has had its day. Earlier this afternoon, we debated “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, which is really the only detailed plan that has been put forward. I know that it has been criticised—that is to be expected—but it is a detailed plan, and some Conservative members gave credit to Mike Russell for it. It postulates, of course, that we will come out of the CFP with the differentiated Brexit proposal that we have put forward. I played a part in getting that into the deal—members should be absolutely sure about that.

We want to get out of the CFP, and we think that that is best option for Scotland, precisely because we can then ensure that key decisions that affect Scotland’s marine assets are made here and not elsewhere—I hope that all members agree with that—and that we can put in place more proportionate fisheries management measures that are based on science and do not arbitrarily impose landing obligations that might well result in vessels having to be tied up in January, February or March and being unable to fish for the rest of the year. I have compared that situation with a proposal that Marks and Spencer close its doors to retail customers in the spring, which would plainly be absurd.

There is a lot of common ground between the SFF and the Scottish Government, and I am determined to pursue that. However, let us look at some of the facts. In 2015, Scotland exported £438 million of fish and seafood to the European Community. Without access to the single market, there are serious questions to be asked about that. We must bear in mind, as Maureen Watt exhorted me to do, that she and other members represent fish processors that have a distinct and legitimate set of interests and commercial concerns. We must look at them in detail in conjunction with our colleagues in Westminster. I will certainly ensure that that process is engaged in.

We have contributed £77 million of European funding to more than 1,200 projects. I was pleased to launch—or relaunch—the injection of a substantial sum to improve the facilities at Peterhead harbour, which I visited early one morning to see the fish market in operation.

The SFF agrees that we need to work out a policy in a differentiated Brexit that provides at least the same level of vital support to upgrade our ports and harbours, the ice facilities, and the access to reasonable-cost electricity to deal with modernisation and innovation, such as the electronic-eye auction system that is being considered for Fraserburgh.

Will the minister give way?

Yes, I will certainly give way.

We need to do all those things, and there needs to be a funding method that enables that to happen.

You were nearly dancing while you waited, Mr Scott.

In that spirit, when the cabinet secretary is next in Lerwick, will he be prepared to make a positive decision about future funding for the new Lerwick fish market, based on the principle that modernisation needs to happen?

I certainly will do that. I hope to get to Shetland. I can blame the British Government for my not having done so, because I had to meet it in Wales. I could not go to Shetland, so the visit was cancelled.

To be serious, I absolutely believe that a legitimate question needs to be answered. What will replace the good things that have come from Europe? Moreover, what will happen to the workers in the processing factories who come from the EU? Will they be secure and will they be welcome? These are very basic questions and they need to be answered.

On access, Maree Todd was quite right about what happened in the 1970s. I am a bit surprised that Tavish Scott is so youthful that he cannot remember the debate in the 1970s, but I stand corrected. It is essential that the exclusive economic zone is not traded away. The worrying thing about what the Prime Minister said in a throwaway comment about Spanish fishermen today is that it suggests that she is already contemplating such negotiations.

When I meet UK ministers—including Mr Eustice and Ms Leadsom—on Thursday next week I will ask emphatically for them to please now provide us with that which they have hitherto refused to provide clearly, which is an absolute undertaking that under no circumstances will they trade away the right to fish in Scotland’s waters as part of Brexit negotiations. It is reasonable to expect that that assurance will be given, but it has not been given yet. I have asked for it three times face to face; I will continue to ask for it. I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate these matters with members this evening in order to highlight that point and to highlight the enormous importance and value of Scotland’s fishermen and fishing industry to our country.

Meeting closed at 17:51.