Scottish Parliament, 22 November 2007

382 contributions from 78 members. The official report.

Official Report 22 November 2007

Sea Fisheries

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-893, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the annual sea fisheries negotiations.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am delighted to open this important debate on this year's vital fisheries negotiations. Suffice it to say that with a First Minister who for more than 20 years has represented Scotland's most fishing-dependent constituency and a Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment who represents Moray fishing communities, Scotland can rest assured that this Government will always treat our fishing industry as a priority.

I am sure that the whole chamber attaches great value to our fishing industry. It is certainly valued by the people of Scotland, as demonstrated by the success of the television series "The Trawlermen". In its focus on Jimmy Buchan of the Amity, his crew and the crews of the other vessels that featured, all of whom illustrated the qualities of this unique industry, the series brought home to all of us the harsh conditions at sea. Today's debate gives us an important opportunity to reflect on the fact that over the past year many men have made the ultimate sacrifice to bring fish to our tables and to follow a way of life that is in their blood.

I am aware of the pain our fleet has borne over the past few years. People still remember decommissioning, when the bells tolled for 165 Scottish white-fish vessels. However, it is time to steer our industry into calmer waters.

Our fishing communities and seafood sector continue to play a central role in our nation, in our culture and heritage, in our economy, in our environment and in our health. Fishermen, the associated processing sectors, the chandlers, the engineers, the painters and the other small businesses that congregate around our harbours are the lifeblood of communities all along our coast. The industry is a key part not only of our maritime history but of Scotland's future, and achieving sustainable fisheries in Scotland's waters will help to preserve the birthright of our fishing communities and provide opportunities for future generations of fishermen.

I am delighted that the next generation of fishermen is represented in the gallery for at least part of this morning's debate by 10 aspiring skippers from all over Scotland who are currently training at Banff and Buchan College. They have met the First Minister this morning and I look forward to meeting them later on.

It is our responsibility to ensure that these young men join a sector with a bright future. Scotland is surrounded by some of the most productive fishing waters in the world; moreover, as the increase in prices in recent years has demonstrated, it produces a product that is in world-wide demand.

This Government will help the sector to make the very most of that future by, among many things, replacing year-to-year crisis management with long-term planning; prioritising the needs of fishing communities from Stornoway to Shetland and from Peterhead to Pittenweem—I must not, of course, miss out Mallaig, given that Fergus Ewing, our fishing champion, is sitting next to me; protecting Scottish quota as the birthright of those communities and especially for new entrants; and safeguarding Scotland's priceless marine environment for this and future generations.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I take the cabinet secretary's point about new entrants. However, will he undertake to look into the European Union's decision this week to claw back money from first-time shareholder fishermen in my Shetland constituency, particularly given that the EU is not only allowing Polish fishermen to continue to fish over quota but—it would appear—allowing French fishermen to receive fuel subsidies from their Government? Will he assure me that there will be a level playing field with regard to the issues that the fishermen in my constituency are confronting?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I share the member's concerns about the EU's deliberations on state aid in relation to Shetland. One of our priorities will be to pursue a level playing field throughout the EU.

We will support dynamic local initiatives in the inshore waters of the west coast and beyond; tirelessly promote Scotland's key food sectors, including fishing; and, crucially, secure the best possible outcome from the annual international negotiations.

The Government is putting enormous energy into those negotiations. In our approach over the coming weeks, we will have two overarching aims, the first of which is to secure not just a fair and just deal for Scottish fisheries, but fishing opportunities that will ensure the fleet's continuing profitability and allow it to plan for the future. Our second aim is to secure a deal that promotes sustainability.

Scotland today stands at the forefront of a new era of sustainable fisheries, and we should take pride in the leadership that is being shown by the Scottish fleet. Members should not only take my word for it; they might well have seen recent headlines in The Scotsman that hailed our fishermen as "the greenest in Europe". That is another sign of Scotland's progress.

This year, Scottish fishermen introduced a European first with their voluntary real-time closures to protect young cod. Many other member states and the Commission have shown interest in following our lead. Although tackling discards in mixed fisheries like ours is a huge challenge, schemes such as voluntary real-time closure and the use of innovative new gears show that our industry is leading the way in finding solutions. In that task, they are working with Scotland's world-class scientists. We share the view that is expressed in the Labour amendment on the importance of that dialogue, which is why we have invested in an enhanced partnership between the industry and science.

I am delighted to inform colleagues of another important development. The Scottish North Sea haddock and langoustine fleets will shortly apply for Marine Stewardship Council certification as sustainable fisheries, joining the pelagic fleet and the Clyde, Torridon and Stornoway langoustine fisheries, all of which are at various stages of that journey. That means that with regard to our top three commercial stocks—mackerel, langoustine and haddock—about half of the total Scottish fleet will be committed to ensuring that its product is, as consumers demand, not only top quality but truly sustainable. I believe that such a move might well be unprecedented in the world and illustrates our fishermen's commitment to sustainability. Over the coming weeks, I will continue to fight for a deal that recognises and rewards that commitment.

On the specifics of the negotiations, we have already made progress towards meeting many of our aims. The 9 per cent cut that was agreed on mackerel not only respected the mackerel management plan but, given the strong international demand for that high-quality product, maximised opportunities for our fleet with minimal impact on income.

Haddock is in good biological shape and we will want to respect the current management plan that has, up to now, allowed us to make the most of the 1999 year class. To give stability to a notoriously volatile fishery, we will press hard for banking and borrowing provisions to ensure that skippers have more flexibility in managing their quota in future years.

The good state of Rockall haddock and new evidence of the abundance of North Sea megrim mean that there are real prospects of increases in the quotas for those stocks. As for west of Scotland herring, we will argue strongly that, although the stock appears to be in decline, the recommended cut has more to do with artificial trigger points than with scientific need.

Of course, much of the attention will focus on cod. I am sure that we have all been encouraged by the scientific advice that has pointed to much-improved prospects for North Sea stocks. There is a clear case for a substantial increase in the quota, partly as a tangible reward to our fishermen for their sacrifices and commitment, and partly because such a move is the right response to what is happening in our fishing grounds. Commissioner Borg has publicly denounced discards. However, I am clear that unless he increases this quota we will be condemned to yet another year of unacceptable slaughter. There is no greater indictment of the common fisheries policy than the huge waste of good-quality and valuable fish that are thrown overboard dead. We believe that an increase in quota of up to 15 per cent would be entirely justified in its own right, but it must not come with draconian strings attached.

We need to continue the trend of reducing mortality, but we must focus on measures other than the blunt instrument of making across-the-board cuts in days at sea. Such a move would have a devastating impact on many of our key fisheries and would prevent our fleet from prosecuting their legitimate quota in other fisheries. It is utterly pointless to grant quotas and then to grant no time to catch them. In Scotland, we have developed a range of very promising measures. We want to focus on giving our fleet incentives, not penalties, and on going with—not against—the grain.

We can, of course, expect from the Commission the usual provocation in the proposals that it will set out next Wednesday. However, we should not be fooled. If the Commission is serious about following the scientific and socioeconomic advice, it must move on from cutting days and build constructively on what we have put on the table.

How will we meet our aims? As Scotland knows to its cost, achieving a fair and just deal in Brussels is often an uphill struggle. However, this Scottish National Party Government promised a fresh start for fisheries, and that is exactly what we are delivering. We are doing things differently and better, and I believe that such an approach will pay dividends.

There are challenges to face. Our efforts are often hampered by the distraction of having to sell our case first to the United Kingdom Government and then to the European Commission. We are several steps removed from the real decision-making processes over our fisheries management and too often our industry's experience and knowledge are utterly sidelined. That is clearly demonstrated by the requirement to operate within the centralised common fisheries policy. While 27 countries sit round the top table deciding the fate of our fishing communities, Scotland's Government is left to fight for a seat with the UK's civil servants in the back row. That is not good enough for Scotland.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The minister said that he is doing things differently from the previous Scottish Executive. I would appreciate it if he could outline exactly half a dozen ways in which he is doing things differently.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am delighted to say that I am coming on to that shortly.

In the new year, we will establish a task force to explore alternatives to the current CFP, to build on the new initiatives that we have put in place—which, I remind Mr Rumbles, I have already spoken about—and to develop appropriate sustainable fisheries management solutions for the circumstances in Scotland's waters. In the meantime, we are firmly committed to achieving the best possible outcome for the Scottish sector this year, and until we have the constitutional power to return control of our waters to Scotland, we will use every opportunity to bring decision making closer to home.

To secure the best possible deal, we continue to argue strongly that Scotland should officially lead for the UK in the fisheries negotiations. Our case is overwhelming, given that we have the lion's share of the interest and therefore the biggest stake in the outcome of the annual talks. We have 70 per cent of UK quota, two thirds of UK landings and well over 70 per cent of the effort that is covered by the cod recovery plan; our industry's socioeconomic importance is 10 per cent greater than that of the fishing industry south of the border. We also have one of the biggest slices of fishing waters in the whole of the EU.

The UK Government has so far refused to allow Scotland to take the lead role. In fact, the UK Government has, to date, refused even to enter into a discussion about the possibility of Scotland taking the lead role. However, I was delighted when Bertie Armstrong, chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, told the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee on 7 November that his access to Westminster ministers has never been so good—yet another sign that the UK Government now recognises that, north of the border, we have a Government that means business.

That is a testament to the improvements in practice surrounding the negotiations that we have been able to make so far. There is no question but that the existing arrangements need to be improved, and I have made available to MSPs the list of 20 key improvements that we have put to the UK Government. I am pleased to tell Mike Rumbles and the rest of the chamber that the UK Government has accepted nearly all those recommendations.

However, the Scottish Government has not been waiting for permission. As I indicated, we have been actively improving the processes. We have been active on the international scene. For example, we composed an authoritative statement of Scotland's views on cod recovery, which was adopted by the UK. We have been proactive in developing Scottish schemes and are energetically identifying and cultivating allies in Europe. We have transformed the processes for setting and implementing priorities, starting with the meeting of the four UK fisheries ministers, at my invitation, here in Scotland at the fishing port of Peterhead.

We have made a step change in stakeholder dialogue, and I look forward to further discussions with west coast fishermen on 3 December. We are bringing the industry into our confidence, more than ever before, to ensure that we never again find ourselves signed up to ill-prepared technical measures, foisted on us by Brussels without any real sense of the damage caused by unintended consequences.

Today we are discussing the future of a strategically important sector in Scotland and a strategically important set of negotiations. It is crucial to Scotland's national interest that we secure an outcome that is fair and just, and which promotes sustainability. All of Scotland has its part to play, including this Parliament. I ask everyone in the chamber to join the rest of Scotland and to unite behind the cause of our fishing communities by supporting the motion, and indeed the amendments. Let us all work together in the years ahead to ensure that we are able to steer our industry into calmer waters.

I move,

That the Parliament supports the Scottish Government in negotiating a deal which is fair and just for Scotland's fishing communities and which reflects in full the leadership which Scotland's fishermen are showing the rest of Europe on sustainable fisheries.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I found Richard Lochhead's speech interesting and refreshing, until the last few minutes. Some of us had been wondering whether there would be a dramatic transformation this morning, and for the first eight minutes of his speech the cabinet secretary certainly talked like a minister. However, I am afraid to say that he lapsed in the last few minutes into his old habit of recycled speeches, and I found it pretty disappointing that he regarded talking with his UK, Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues as a distraction when he is selling Scotland's case to the UK. He went on to talk about the need to build allies across Europe—we need to do that in the UK as much as we do with the rest of Europe.

I welcome the fact that today's debate is taking place. The change of timing, to June, for the next advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea will mean that we all have much more time to explore that advice in a bit more depth. It is unusual for us to have this debate before the negotiations, and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee is conducting detailed discussions, but it gives us the chance in year to have a slightly wider background discussion on our fisheries and how we protect and manage them.

I say "our fisheries" quite deliberately. I know that we share our fisheries with others, and the challenge, as the minister said, is to ensure that the outcome of the negotiations is good for everybody. Our starting point and our bottom line must be that the negotiations are good for the sustainability of our stock. Labour members want to support the cabinet secretary in his work as part of the UK team, and we wish members of that team the best for the upcoming negotiations. We are happy to support the Conservative amendment, which simply sets out the reality that we are part of a UK team, that we need to get a good deal for the whole of the UK, and that we need effective partnership working.

We had no great difficulty with the Scottish National Party motion, as far as it went, but we felt that it needed to be amended. We agree with the minister that there have been some excellent initiatives with the industry. There is certainly much more accurate information now than there was when the Parliament started out on how our fish stocks are faring and how new techniques that might help future stocks could be employed. However, Labour members start from the first principle that our overarching objective should be to retain a sustainable fishery.

The fishery must be sustainable in two senses—we must ensure that the stock recovers and that fisheries reduction efforts, of which the cabinet secretary has been critical over the past few years, can be made. Those efforts have begun to deliver and to pay off, and some of the stocks that were most vulnerable are beginning to recover. That is why the minister is able to talk about examining the possibility of increasing some quotas. As well as considering the sustainability of our fishing stocks, we must focus on what the Government can do in Scotland, working with the industry, to ensure that our fishing communities get a long-term economic benefit as a result of that stewardship. It is a pity that the minister did not focus more on that; he mentioned it only in the first sentence of his speech.

The timing of the debate puts the focus on the next round of fisheries negotiations, which are well under way. However, we also need to focus on some of the principles and longer-term issues that will probably go beyond December and into next year's discussions. In the short term, we must welcome the progress that has been made, but some fish stocks will clearly need more time to recover. In particular, the emergence of a new class of cod is to be strongly welcomed, but we need to take note of the ICES advice that that 2005 year class has the potential to recover but that it must be carefully harvested and allowed to spawn.

We cannot forget that other sectors have seen less progress. The minister spent most of his time talking about the areas in which there has been some strong progress, but we know from the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing and from the ICES information that parts of the stock—in haddock, whiting, herring and mackerel, in key areas around Scotland—are still not showing strong enough recovery.

There is some good information and some evidence of stock recovery, but it is not uniform. By looking at all the different stocks and not simply taking a blanket approach, the minister seems to be taking the right approach. Underpinning that, however, must be the precautionary principle. That does not mean that we will not consider increasing quotas anywhere, or that there will not be potential opportunities for fishermen, but we must steward the stocks and work with the fishing industry to deliver that recovery. That is the starting point of Labour's amendment. We must ensure that the precautionary principle underlines everything that we do.

We should not forget that the ICES advice was that the stock had declined over a period of 30 years to the point at which we needed dramatic action if it was ever to recover. Although the science will never be exact, we ignore at our peril the trends and messages that the scientists give us. We must look at the science, but we must also do more to ensure that the science that we have is as accurate and up to date as possible. The pilot schemes and the innovative work that our fishing communities have been doing can be useful in giving us more accurate and up-to-date information. That is why the second focus of sustainable fisheries must relate to the industry.

We have had a tough few years. Richard Lochhead described the measures as draconian, but they were needed to ensure that Ross Finnie was able to negotiate a deal for Scotland and to enable some of our fish stocks to recover as they have done. It has been tough for the fishing fleet to have a reduced effort and to be more sustainable but, in the view of Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the fleet is probably broadly at around the right size. We need to ensure that the fleet can access fish in a sustainable way.

There were bound to be areas in which it was difficult to secure agreement, but the Labour amendment highlights the importance of bringing together the wealth of experience that there is. The fishing industry has participated in pilot projects and changed long-established practices. It has worked with complex new recording measures, so that we can have a more accurate understanding of what is happening to stocks. I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement that another part of our fishing community will join the Marine Stewardship Council scheme, which is important in demonstrating to consumers that the fishing industry is leading the way in becoming more sustainable.

The scientific community must be part of the discussion. We should not consider its advice just once a year; we must tap into scientists' expertise and embed their work in everything that happens. We need to do more to understand the science that underpins stock levels and assessments of stock levels. There are key questions about climate change, which will have an impact on the state of our seas, spawning grounds and the fishing community's ability to catch fish. We need to be plugged into that agenda and I hope that the cabinet secretary will add climate change to the scientific issues that he considers. We must include conservationists and people who focus on our marine environment, whose perspectives will add immense value to the development of solutions that we urgently need.

It is crucial that the cabinet secretary should facilitate more dialogue between the sectors that I have mentioned. We cannot consider advice independently and then take an assessment; we must get sectors round the table, working together to debate the best options and suggest ideas that will enable the minister to propose a convincing and workable package. The message from the Parliament is that much has been achieved during the past eight years, but much more needs to be done. We must continue to take a co-operative approach in which we take account of the science and work with the fishing community.

The BBC did us a good service by highlighting discards in an accessible way and pushing the issue to the top of the agenda. That was useful.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does Sarah Boyack agree that we could take the approach to discards that is taken in the Faroe Islands and Iceland, for example, where no fish is regarded as worthless and thrown overboard, but all fish are landed on the quay, counted, taken into the scientific equation and priced at a particular level? If we did that, the monstrosity of discards, which we saw on television this week, might well be tackled sensibly.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

We need to take a step back and ask why so many fish are still being caught and discarded. Interesting work is being done on different types of net. We have mixed fisheries and it must be incredibly frustrating for fishermen to catch a whole lot of fish above their quota, which they cannot use and must simply drop back into the sea. I think we all agree that that is crazy.

Some members know more than I do about fishing patterns for different species, but I understand that a range of nets can be used, some of which are quite cheap and some of which are much more expensive. In co-operation with the industry the minister could develop incentives to make accessible to fishermen nets that could reduce the number of discards. In that regard, an approach in which conservationists, the fishing industry and the scientists get round the table will help in the development of solutions.

Discards are a difficult problem and we need more pilots to tackle the issue. We should consider what experiments could be carried out. I would like the minister to incentivise the industry to consider the gear selectivity measures that different sectors of the fishing community can use—for example, to bring down cod removals, given that there was no take-up of such measures this year. What more could be done to persuade communities to take up such opportunities? If slashing discards is an objective to which the cabinet secretary has signed up, he must consider bycatch quotas, which he did not mention, as part of the overall cod recovery plan.

Some issues are difficult for us to consider in a parliamentary debate and lend themselves much more to consideration whereby the key people sit round the table and have a discussion. We cannot just declare an amnesty on discards, as Ted Brocklebank suggested, because we must still get the message across that we need good management of existing stocks. Inadvertent catches can be significant and can damage our efforts. We need the right quotas and we need to help our fishing communities to use the nets that I mentioned.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I understand the member's point, from which I take it that she does not support individual transferable quotas, which would not be good news for the Scottish fishing industry.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Such detail is not for a parliamentary debate, Tavish. The key point is—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Please refer to the member as Mr Scott or Tavish Scott. Please do not use first names, Sarah—I mean Ms Boyack. [ Laughter. ]

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I am registered as Sarah Boyack, not Ms Boyack.

We need to get into the detail of issues such as the one that Tavish Scott raised. I hope that the Minister for Environment will address that in his winding-up speech. I did not expect the cabinet secretary to unveil his entire negotiating stance in UK or EU negotiations. We should consider the broad impact of policy and use the expertise of colleagues who have particular knowledge of the fishing industry.

We need more action on incentives for the fleet. We are asking our fishermen to change practices and we need to support them in that. It is tough to change practice while trying to find fish where there are fewer and fewer fish to find. Issues such as the one that Tavish Scott raised need to be on the cabinet secretary's agenda.

In opposition, the cabinet secretary was highly critical of Government initiatives that had majority support in the chamber. I hope that when the minister winds up we will hear much more about incentives, to give the fleet the opportunity to change practice in a way that makes sense for long-term stewardship. We should consider the use of observers. I hope that the minister will address the issue, in particular in the context of finance and the number of observers that is required to ensure a robust system. WWF-UK has published an interesting report on observers; I hope that the cabinet secretary will consider that report and tell us whether he agrees with its conclusions.

I expect that members will focus on a range of measures and issues during the debate—I hope that we get more detail. In the longer term, we need a much more regional approach, and I hope that members will talk about that. I very much welcome the debate and I hope that there will be a degree of consensus among members, even if we disagree on some of the detail.

I move amendment S3M-893.2, to insert at end:

"agrees that the precautionary principle should prevail in setting levels of permissible fishing activity; acknowledges that much more work needs to be done to create a truly sustainable fishery in the North Sea, including measures to reduce dramatically if not eliminate discards, recognising that one good year class does not of itself create a sustainable fishery stock, and further agrees that there needs to be dialogue between the fishing industry, scientists and conservation interests to ensure continuous improvement in stocks and a long-term sustainable future for the industry."

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

For the first time in a long time, I think that I do not have to declare an interest in the debate, other than that I am an enthusiastic consumer of fish.

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the debate, which gives the Parliament its first opportunity since the elections in May to explore the subject and try to take matters forward by making positive suggestions in the run-up to the fisheries council meeting next month. I welcome Sarah Boyack's approach in that regard.

We consider the issue against a backdrop of slow and steady decline in Scotland's once-proud fishing industry. Almost 3,000 fishermen left the industry and more than 1,000 vessels were deregistered in the past 10 years. It would be churlish to deny that some sectors are doing reasonably well, but that is at a cost of brutal reductions in the size of the fleet.

The sad truth is that Scotland's fishermen have become used to getting a raw deal from Brussels. No one knows that better than the cabinet secretary, who when he was in opposition left us in no doubt that under a Scottish National Party Government things would be different and better. I remind him that he has set the bar extremely high on what we and our fishermen expect him to deliver in Brussels. I noted what he said, which I assume means that he will seek a 15 per cent increase in the cod quota this year. We will support him when he fights our corner next month.

The Government's motion contains a factual inaccuracy. The UK Government ultimately negotiates the deal, working with and alongside the Scottish ministers. I hope that all members can support the Conservative amendment, which is technical in essence.

What do Conservatives expect from Government ministers in conjunction with their UK colleagues at the Brussels discussions? First, on cod, it is essential that the European Commission be made to understand the sterling measures that Scottish fishermen have implemented to further the conservation effort, through the recently expanded voluntary closure scheme and the observation initiative. The measures are welcome and stand in marked contrast to what Bertie Armstrong described as the "blunt instruments" of quotas and days at sea, on which the discredited EU cod recovery plan relies. The on-going review of the plan is, therefore, welcome, and I offer the cabinet secretary the strongest possible support in the pursuit of his blueprint for the species.

On the wider issue of cod stocks and other species, it is evident that fishermen and scientists agree that recovery is essential but that they differ on the rate of recovery that is needed. It is heartening that the North Sea cod stocks are recovering, despite being fished when the scientists said that the fisheries should be closed. It is, therefore, vital to strike a sensible balance between the recovery of all our fish stocks and the preservation of our fishermen's livelihoods, bearing in mind that, if we get it wrong, the consequences could be dire for fishermen and fish alike.

That brings me to what must be the overriding priority for Scottish and UK ministers in December: tackling the disgraceful scandal of discards. From a layperson's point of view, that has to be one of the most wasteful practices on the planet and defies all reason and talk of sustainability. I am both amazed and appalled that a new approach to resolving the issue has not been taken before now. Indeed, the blasé attitude that was taken by the UK minister with responsibility for fisheries and Commissioner Borg when asked about this utterly repugnant practice on Tuesday was utterly depressing. Between 40 and 60 per cent of North Sea cod are being thrown back into the sea dead or dying, and that is no longer acceptable. Now is the time to muster the political will in this country and across Europe to tackle the problem head on.

One option that should be explored further is the Norwegian approach, which makes it an offence to catch, rather than land, undersized fish and has resulted in a huge improvement in gear selectivity, which has reduced the capture of juvenile fish. A modest bycatch of juvenile fish is permitted, for which the fishermen receive 20 per cent of their value and which are not included in their quota. Another option would be to permit fishermen to land everything that they catch, with over-quota species being sold for a nominal amount. Alternatively, fishermen could be allowed to keep their full catch, policed by reduced days at sea and temporary closures of zones with large numbers of young fish.

All those options must be considered as ways forward. Such serious anti-discard measures, combined with the voluntary conservation measures that are being pioneered in Scotland, give us the tools to create a workable way forward.

Our recreational sea anglers, whose interests are far too often overlooked, share our concerns about preserving the fragile marine environment close to our shores. To that end, a further additional measure that the cabinet secretary might wish to explore is the idea of a golden mile in which only recreational anglers could fish. That would aid the improvement of stocks, for the benefit of everyone.

I trust that the cabinet secretary agrees that the environment and the fishermen have been catastrophically let down by the current arrangements, which have failed staggeringly in their objectives. For that reason, we must continue to fight for more local and regional control of our fisheries, so that we can put in place the measures that are required to rebuild our stocks and breathe back life into our hard-pressed fishing communities.

I move amendment S3M-893.1, to insert after "Government":

", working with the UK Government,".

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Our aim must be to have a Scottish sea fishing industry that is sustainable and profitable and which supports strong local communities. It must be managed effectively as an integral part of policies for the marine environment.

The negotiations that are under way with non-EU states such as Norway, the Faroes and Iceland are of as much importance to Scottish fishermen as is the EU fisheries council. It is essential that the Scottish and UK Governments ensure that Scotland's vital interests are protected, especially in the EU-Norwegian talks. I know that, under Ross Finnie, the previous Executive invited the EU negotiators to Scotland for a first-hand look at Scottish interests and held discussions with them on the issues. I would like to know from the current minister whether he has repeated that invitation.

Perhaps Richard Lochhead could also update us on how he is getting along in delivering his commitment to give Scotland's fishermen better representation and a stronger voice by leading the UK's ministerial delegation at EU meetings. He has continued on that tack since he became the Scottish minister responsible for fisheries. In June, he said that it was

"vital that Scotland's interests are at the heart of negotiations".

He also said that, to ensure that that happens,

"we have to change the status quo where, effectively, it is DEFRA ... that takes and leads talks and ... Scotland's role is sidelined far too often."

Indeed, the First Minister, Alex Salmond, said that there is a world of difference between being part of the UK team and leading it.

I thought that Richard Lochhead's more recent comments had indicated that he had changed his position. He recently said that, although it is important to have a seat at the top table, much work happens behind the scenes in the run-up to the meetings and that

"key Scottish concerns were reflected in the UK position."

That may have come as a surprise to Richard Lochhead, but it came as no surprise to the many people who have been involved in the negotiations over the years. That is what some of us have been trying to tell him for some time. Just two weeks ago, Bertie Armstrong, the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, confirmed to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee that the UK's position in the negotiations reflected extremely well the SFF's position.

The point that I am making is that there never was any point in insisting that Scottish ministers lead the UK delegation. I thought that Richard Lochhead might have recognised that, but I was disappointed to hear him once again repeat his grandstanding on the issue.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank the member for his vindication of the positive difference that the SNP Government has made since it came to power.

On the issue of leading for the UK at the EU negotiations, the distinction that I was drawing in the statement that he quoted was that officially leading the UK negotiation team involves not only sitting at the top table but having access to and leadership of the UK negotiating machinery, which is important because a lot of work is done behind the scenes.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

If we accept that Scotland's interests are reflected in the UK's position—which, I hope, Richard Lochhead does—it makes absolute sense for the UK, with its much larger bargaining power, to be arguing our case in Europe and for our Scottish minister to be taking his proper place—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

His correct and rightful place, which is as part of that UK delegation.

I had hoped that the era of political grandstanding on the issue was now over—although, from the flack that I am getting from SNP members, I can see that it is not—and that Richard Lochhead would instead concentrate his efforts on securing the best possible outcome for our fishing communities and the marine environment.

One of the major issues that I hope the cabinet secretary will concentrate on—and which has already been raised by Sarah Boyack, John Scott and Ted Brocklebank—is that of ending the obscene policy of fish discards. The policy of dumping dead fish over the side because of quota restrictions must come to an end. We heard yesterday in evidence given to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee that as much as 60 per cent of a catch could be dumped at sea. That is simply unacceptable.

We also heard yesterday that Norway has managed to tackle the issue to an extent by rewarding its fishermen with 20 per cent of the value of the fish that would otherwise be discarded as compensation for bringing them ashore. I do not like the word, but we should perhaps try to incentivise our fishermen in a similar way. If Norway can do it, why is it impossible for the EU to do it?

Richard Lochhead's motion congratulates Scotland's fishermen on the leadership that they are showing the rest of Europe in relation to the technical measures that they are developing for a more sustainable fishery. That is good, but let us go one step further. I would like to see a motion congratulating the Scottish Government on taking a similar lead in achieving an end to the discard policy that everyone involved recognises is completely wrong. It is wrong for our fishermen, it is wrong for our economy, it is wrong for our environment and, quite frankly, it is morally wrong, too. If Richard Lochhead could achieve that particular reform within the common fisheries policy, that would really be something to shout about.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Fisheries are a crucial part of the local economy and way of life in my constituency of the Western Isles. The shellfish sector is particularly important. Shellfish landings make up 16 per cent of the total landings by weight, but 38 per cent by value, which makes shellfish, for the first time, the sector that is most valuable to the Scottish fleet. The value of shellfish landings increased by 25 per cent between 2005 and 2006. Although much of the focus of the EU fisheries talks is, understandably, on cod, the importance of shellfish should not be forgotten.

The wider picture—as anyone who knows any fishermen will be aware—is that the industry has had a rough time on both coasts of Scotland in the past ten years. Measures that have been taken under the common fisheries policy in the name of conservation have caused more than 1,000 boats to be decommissioned in Scotland during that time. That in itself, however, is not why fishermen in Scotland feel aggrieved. What really hurts is that, as we have heard today, the Scottish fleet has been leading the way in conservation measures during much of that time—not least in recent months, when the industry has increasingly pursued a range of ideas that have been developed with fishermen and environmental groups. Those measures included voluntary closures of fishing areas and independent onboard observers to ensure that young fish were not caught and then—as we have discussed—discarded.

The measures are having an effect: the UK fisheries minister, Jonathan Shaw, conceded only this week that

"We have seen a recovery in cod in the North Sea in particular—now that is good news. "

For the first time in six years, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea has not called for a complete closure of North Sea cod fisheries in forthcoming years. It found that cod stocks were showing signs of recovery, and that is good news—news that I hope will be acted upon in the coming round of fisheries talks.

However, what really leaves Scotland's fishermen feeling hard done by is that, throughout those difficult years, the Executive in Scotland felt unable at any point to challenge the most destructive policies that were being pursued by Whitehall against their industry.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

Members may say "nonsense", but it could be said that the previous Executive created a desert and called it "partnership". I am sorry to be partisan, but is it any wonder that most of Scotland's fishing communities are now represented by the SNP? Those fishing communities, which are awaiting the European negotiations, recognise that the cabinet secretary cannot deliver everything that they want, not least because of the intransigence of the EU and UK positions. They know, however, that there is something new in the equation—the first ever pro-fishing Scottish Government.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the member quote one occasion on which the UK position has been adopted without the full input of a Scottish minister?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

The full input of a Scottish minister under the previous regime usually consisted of the word "yes". As commendable as the member's interest in this subject is, and as commendable as his attitude on many aspects of it is, I want to know how he can reconcile his position with the comments made by his Liberal colleague Chris Davies in the European Parliament. On 5 September, Chris Davies said:

"you have to stop the fishing; you have got to put the fleets on the side, you have got to put fishermen out of work".

However, I am being called on to be consensual, so I note that Mr Scott has lodged an amendment that seeks to join up the Government in working constructively with Westminster, and I have no doubt that it will. I am certain that Mr Scott is not asking Scotland's Government to agree with Westminster in the instances in which Westminster happens to be wrong—as it has undoubtedly been on many occasions. If ever any issue were devised to disprove the argument that Scotland benefits from having Britain act as a middle man in Europe, it is fishing. Scotland is not a member state in its own right—it is barred from participating in the talks, and the Scottish Government is accorded only observer status at the meetings. That is why my comment is met with mutters from die-hard unionists, and why Scotland should be leading the UK negotiating team in Europe. Unionists might moan, but we should consider how obsessive and dogmatic their position is.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

I have already taken one.

Scotland has 25 per cent of European Union waters and 62 per cent of UK landings, yet it has no direct say in European fisheries talks. As we go into the next round of negotiations, let us hear why the mighty European sea fishing powers of Luxembourg, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary all have a direct vote on what happens to Scotland's fishing industry, but Scotland itself does not. Members should not try to explain that to me—they should try to explain it to a fisherman.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I have spoken before in the Parliament about the vital importance of our seas as the whole basis of human existence. If we do not consider the health of our seas, we threaten and endanger our future existence. The fish stock, and the part that it plays, is a vital element of the ecosystems of our seas. Having strong and sustainable fish stocks is part of ensuring that we manage our seas effectively in the future. I am pleased about what the minister said regarding the marine stewardship scheme—I welcome such a scheme, and I hope that it makes progress, because it is a signal that we are interested in ensuring that we have sustainable fish stocks.

In this debate, I stand on the side of the fish. If we are not on the side of the fish, we do not have sustainable stocks; if we do not have sustainable stocks, we do not have a sustainable industry; and if we do not have a sustainable industry, we do not have sustainable communities around our coastline. We need to invest our effort in ensuring that, fundamentally, our stocks are sustainable in the future. We have evidence from the scientists—the Parliament's Rural Affairs and Environment Committee took evidence from scientists yesterday—and from the papers that we have read from others, such as environmental groups and so on, that tells us that there are potential threats in one way or another to stocks of cod, haddock, whiting and mackerel, although we do not know what is happening to monkfish. It is reckoned that 16 out of 21 different fish stocks are beyond sustainable levels. There are many factors at work in that, such as environmental factors, but undoubtedly fishing is one of the factors that affects stock overall.

The coming negotiations are vital, first and foremost, if we are to ensure that we have sustainable stocks so that we can produce a sustainable industry that will lead to sustainable communities. It has been encouraging to hear the growing consensus that has been building over recent years on what needs to be done. The fishing industry, the environmental groups, the UK Government and the Scottish Government seem to be broadly in line on the direction of travel. There might be different points to be made about the emphasis within that broad agreement on the speed of travel, but there is—it appears—now no disagreement about the direction, and that is to be warmly welcomed and encouraged.

There is agreement that the issue of discards—as mentioned by a number of members—must be addressed. As the UK fisheries minister agreed this week, there is a sense of moral outrage about what is happening, but it also wastes resources, damages the stocks and is economically inefficient. There is agreement about the need to close some fisheries at various points in the breeding cycle of the fish, and the voluntary closures pilot that is under way is a welcome part of that. There is also agreement on the need to have more independent observers in our fleet, and I hope that the minister will go further on that than he has already. There is agreement about the technical measures—Sarah Boyack and others have touched on those—that have a big part to play. We already have many of the technical solutions to help reduce the discards. The recent trials of 120mm square-mesh nets have been promising, and the separator panels that have also been piloted show some promise, but there is much more work to do.

I encourage the minister to indicate in his summing-up speech that he wants to do more about the research, to make more progress, and to consider in particular the impact on the smaller boats that operate on the west coast. If we can make more technical progress, that has to be the sensible and right way to proceed. However, it concerns me that there is not more take-up of those technical solutions by the industry—we need to find the right balance between incentives and compulsion. There are no easy answers, but that balance must be struck. If we have the technical solutions, the knowledge and the capacity significantly to affect the problem, it would be a complete outrage not to use the technology—we need to move forward on that.

There is less consensus on what the total allowable catch for cod should be in the coming year. As others have said, it is encouraging that there are early signs of some recovery of the stocks—but they are early signs, and the recovery is still small. It would be folly if we were now to plunder those stocks in a way that would set us—and the industry—back in time. We must take a long-term view and not just a short-term one. We need to be cautious and precautionary.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

For six years, the scientific advice has been that there should be no cod fishing, although there has been cod fishing because of ministerial decisions. Suddenly, the scientific advice is that we can fish some cod. How should we deal with that advice?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

According to the scientists who gave evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee yesterday, part of the science is inexact. We need to learn the lessons of that. That said, we know that we are still overfishing relative to the sustainable level of the stocks. I will comment further on the UK and Scottish Governments' position.

It appears—the minister confirmed today—that the UK is about to argue for a 15 per cent increase in the total allowable catch of cod. The purpose of that is to reduce discards, not to increase the total take of cod from the sea. It seems that Scottish ministers and the industry have signed up to that. Many scientists argue that making such an increase would be going too far and they advise against it. However, everybody agrees that if we have that increase without implementing a strong range of other measures alongside it—modern gear, the closures that are being piloted and observers on boats, for example—we will further harm the stocks. The scientists at the committee yesterday testified to that.

I seek an assurance from the minister that he will not argue for just one side of the equation—an increase in the total allowable catch—without arguing for the other measures. We must not harm the stocks, but we can increase the take marginally.

As others have said, we are entering a negotiation, and everybody knows that one cannot get everything one wants from a negotiation. I was particular about picking up the minister's comments when he said he will argue for an increase of up to 15 per cent. I hope that he will not leave the UK ministers isolated in the argument as the negotiations continue.

Presiding Officer, you are looking at me ominously. Are you asking me to wind up?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Yes.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will do so, but first I want to make a point about the nephrops fishery on the west coast. We must ensure that that quota continues, given that there is little bycatch of cod in the area. We must also ensure that the error that was made last year in relation to fishing days for the west coast fleet is corrected during the negotiations.

In many ways, the western seaboard has led the cod conservation measures in the recent past. I ask the minister to commit to giving a report on the Windsock closure and the seasonal closures on the Clyde so that we can assess the benefits and decide whether fishermen's ability to fish those areas should be increased because they have made substantial progress.

I would also like the minister, if possible—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should be finishing now, Mr Peacock.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will finish.

What progress is being made on the inshore fisheries group in the Western Isles, which could make a big contribution to the long-term management of fish stocks? It is ready to move forward and I hope that there will be a timetable that allows it to do so.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Obviously, fishing is an important industry for Scotland. It is even more important for the Highlands and Islands, where it accounts for 2.3 per cent of employment, compared with 1.5 per cent in Scotland as a whole. Therefore, it is 50 per cent more important for the Highlands and Islands, where jobs are scarce in general. In the Western Isles it is 150 per cent more important, and in Skye and Wester Ross it is 200 per cent more important.

We have fishing communities all round our coasts in the Highlands and Islands, in places such as Mallaig, Stornoway, Ullapool, Kinlochbervie, Scrabster, Lerwick, Avoch and Lossiemouth. Lossiemouth is an important place. It is where I was born and brought up. I am a Lossie loon. Lossie has been a fishing toon for centuries. It was actually three little toons to start with—Stotfield, Branderburgh and Seatown—which came together around a new harbour. Everything in Lossie revolved around fishing.

Lossie has suffered over the years. It has lost many fishermen, and it has had its share of disasters. Once, most of the fleet was lost off Stotfield. The sea and fishing are intertwined with the soul of the community in such places. My grandfather, uncle and cousins were all fishermen. I have been out fishing for white fish, prawns and crabs off the Butt of Lewis. Fishing is dear to my heart. When I was young, Lossiemouth harbour was full of boats—it was possible to walk across the harbour on top of the boats. It was a great sight just after midnight on Sunday night—the fishermen would not sail on Sundays—to see the lights of 70 or 80 boats leaving the harbour and heading out into the Moray Firth.

Lossie is now basically a marina surrounded by nice flats. The reason for that is a combination of the common fisheries policy and a lack of proper representation in European decision making. The Scottish fishing industry has been devastated in the past number of years. The devastation was kicked off by the Tories, when Ted Heath took us into Europe. At that time, fishing was expendable. The devastation was embedded by Labour in recent times. Now, 27 member states, many of which are landlocked, have more say than Scotland has when it comes to fishing. When Luxembourg breaks up, as it might well do, the Flemish and the Walloons will also have more say than Scotland has.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I think the member means the Belgians.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Sorry. I thank Mike Rumbles for that. I meant the Belgians.

We need a vote on the treaty, or the constitution, to save our fishing. We need to make our own decisions on fishing and to take responsibility for the sustainability of our own fishing.

Since 1999, the number of fishermen in Scotland has dropped by 3,000, from about 8,000 to about 5,000. Many have gone out of business. We have lost more than 1,000 boats and thousands of processing jobs. Scotland's fleet has been cut by 66 per cent, whereas the fleets of Spain and Ireland have increased. After one negotiation, Ross Finnie, the former fisheries minister, said:

"we have secured the best possible deal for Scottish fisheries."

If that was the best that he could do, what would have happened if he had failed?

From 2003 to 2007, ICES advised that no cod should be caught, yet quotas were set—more than 10,000 tonnes in 2003; more than 9,500 tonnes in 2004; more than 8,500 tonnes in 2005; more than 9,000 tonnes in 2006; and more than 7,000 tonnes in 2007. The total for that period is more than 45,000 tonnes.

We should consider what the European Union says about discards. Discards are fish that are caught above the quota. They are perfectly good fish and are usually caught in mixed fisheries. I am amazed by the surprise that MSPs such as Peter Peacock, Sarah Boyack, Mike Rumbles and Ted Brocklebank have expressed on the issue. It is as if we have only just realised that it is a problem. It has been a problem for many years, but Labour and the Liberal Democrats did not tackle it when they were in power.

The total amount of cod caught in that five-year period, including discards, would have been 90,000 tonnes, yet the cod is recovering. If we had listened to ICES, we would have destroyed fishing by closing the fishery altogether. When we ask any fisherman who is out there doing the work, they say that the sea is full of fish. Peter Peacock says that the science is inexact, but the fishermen have been telling us that for many years.

The UK fisheries minister, Jonathan Shaw, now agrees with Joe Borg that discards are immoral and that the quota system leads to discards. The answer is obviously to increase the quotas and control fishing effort in other ways. We should close areas, have observers on boats to watch what is going on and use selective gear. When fishermen come across small cod, they can sound an alert and the area can be closed for a while.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Sorry, but I am in my final 30 seconds.

The fishermen will be more than happy to co-operate with those measures. The quota system is a blunt instrument.

This is the best opportunity that we have had for a long time to make real gains for our fishing industry. Scotland has 25 per cent of Europe's fishing waters and more than 300,000km2 of sea. Is it unreasonable to ask that we be allowed to benefit from that? I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment will treat fishing as a priority. Bertie Armstrong, the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, certainly thinks so. He said:

"we are confident that the first steps in the right direction are being taken."

Not before time. I am sure that we will get a fair deal for Scotland's fishermen. I just hope that the UK does not let us down again.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to speak in this debate, and I welcome the fact that it has been scheduled some weeks before the EU council meeting on 17 to 19 December. That will give the cabinet secretary more time to listen to the concerns of the various different sectors of the fishing industry before he goes. I genuinely hope that the debate will inform and assist the cabinet secretary and his officials as they prepare for his first EU ministerial council, as well as the second round of the EU-Norway negotiations, which are under way and which are equally important. I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of the Clyde Fishermen's Association.

I will start with the demersal sector of the North Sea before moving on to raise some of the other key issues that affect my fishing constituents on the west coast and in the Highlands and Islands. As other members have mentioned, the one piece of positive news that stands out from the ICES October science report is its assessment of North Sea cod stocks, which has led ICES, for the first time in six years, not to recommend a zero catch. That scientific report mirrors what most fishermen tell us about their recent experience of cod stocks in the North Sea: the situation is getting better.

It is of course early days for cod's recovery, but the Scottish fishing industry has bent over backwards to create, with Government, the scientists and the non-governmental organisations, a range of tools that are aimed at reducing cod mortality through fishing. I and Scotland's fishermen now look to the minister to negotiate an increase in the cod TAC to mitigate discards in the North Sea. Fishermen and the public are rightly outraged by those discards. People cannot understand why they have to go on taking place. Along with addressing that, we need a series of achievable and practical cod avoidance measures.

On the pelagic sector, the industry has accepted a 9 per cent reduction in the mackerel TAC, but fishermen are seeing a much greater abundance of mackerel at sea, and we hope that the science will catch up with that next year.

At last December's council, 28 days were deducted from the number of days that derogated west coast prawn fishing boats could spend at sea. The derogated boats are those that catch less than 5 per cent cod. The days available to those vessels were reduced from 280 to 252. That was an error. The days should have been deducted from the days that are allowed to the same fleet in the North Sea. Officials in both Edinburgh and Brussels have admitted the mistake, and they have asked that the days at sea that were deducted be added back before any consideration is given to the days to be allowed for 2008. Will the cabinet secretary assure me that he recognises the mistake and that he will seek to remedy last year's reduction in the number of days that the derogated west coast prawn fishing boats could spend at sea? Does he accept the west coast nephrops fishermen's real concerns that any move to an introduction of kilowatt days could hit them particularly hard? Does he also accept that any imposition of statutory real-time closures will severely hit prawn fishermen? Will he engage with their representatives before any decisions are made in that regard?

More generally, I hope that the cabinet secretary will agree that such a diversity of fisheries requires a diversity of approaches—we need more paint-brushes in the tin. The one-size-fits-all approach failed us in the past. Perhaps he will consider a more combined approach when dealing with the different sectors of the industry.

On the north-west coast, around area VI, there has been much talk and rumour that the so-called French line that runs from west of Shetland down the continental shelf is to be removed by the EU. That is causing fishermen major concern. Will the cabinet secretary consult those fishermen before he goes to Brussels? There are only 12 boats in that area, but they are big boats, and they are vital to Kinlochbervie and other places. There is also talk of a habitat closure off Rockall, which will cost one of those vessels alone more than £200,000 annually. Since when has there been significant cod catch west of St Kilda? There has been no such thing. Will cabinet secretary push for a 10 per cent increase in the quota for west coast monkfish and megrims in that area to allow boats to continue to fish there?

Fundamentally, the Scottish fishing industry needs two things. One is sustainable amounts of fish to catch, and our fishermen are committed to working with all the relevant agencies to achieve that. Secondly, the industry needs enough time in which to catch those fish sustainably. I am sure that the whole Parliament wishes the cabinet secretary well in his efforts to achieve those things for our Scottish fishing fleet.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I thank Richard Lochhead for his introduction. Listening to his speech, it seemed that the SNP trawl had moved from the benthic depths, up through the gloom of the demersal area and into a kind of pelagic paradise, where we have all seen the light, and where the interests of the fishermen, the environment and the politicians are beginning to come together. I have a feeling that that is indeed the case. I very much support Sarah Boyack's amendment, which bears an uncanny resemblance to some ideas that I had earlier in the week.

One should reflect on one or two things, especially having heard some of the speeches from the back benches. European fisheries negotiations have been marked across the board by political chicanery, self-serving actions, manoeuvring, evasion and Machiavellian mendacity on the part of all countries concerned in a way that is unparalleled in the workings of any other council in the short history of the European Union. I do not envy the cabinet secretary when he enters the shark-infested waters, but shark infested they are, as they have been in the past.

Let us reflect on the huge amount of fishing that has been carried out in Scotland over history—two thirds of total landings and 70 per cent of the UK quota. Stocks in the North Sea have been in continuous decline, to the point that we have now begun to take the serious measures that are needed for the stocks to recover. We bear at least a share of the responsibility for that decline. I am prepared to regard our fisherman not so much as green warriors, as delineated in The Scotsman, but rather as repentant sinners who have seen the light.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

All of us are delighted that the fishermen are showing even more green credentials, but does Robin Harper not accept that the story of the departing cod is related much more to climate change than to the rapacious efforts of Scotland's fishermen?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Absolutely no evidence has been adduced to that effect. At the moment, that is speculation. However, one point feeds the speculation: cod prefer cooler waters than those that are beginning to invade the North Sea.

Only the European Union, in the spirit of the Belgian artist Magritte, could introduce a non-paper—like "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." Anyway, the EU's non-paper is full of interesting and alarming detail. In the North Sea overall, the stocks with zero-TAC advice still number 20; stocks outside sustainable biological limits number 26; stocks inside SBL number 12; and stocks with status unknown with regard to SBL number 59. That situation in European waters does not give us any grounds for complacency.

I wish to address some more of the detail of today's debate. There have been some interesting proposals on bycatch from all sides of the chamber. One of the more interesting ones was a proposal for bycatch quotas, which would particularly help the cod fishery, by limiting cod mortality while allowing profitable mixed fisheries to continue. It might be possible for most of the cod that is landed to come from mixed fisheries. The Government might want to consider such an enlightened approach.

It was suggested that we should unite behind the industry. We should do everything that we can to ensure that we have a surviving fishing fleet and industry in Scotland, but no fish means no fishing. The point of the precautionary principle, which is raised in the Labour amendment, is that we should not jump in and go for an increase in TACs without the back-up measures that are desperately needed to reduce overall cod mortality. I shall seek an assurance on that point before I finish speaking.

I have five questions for the minister. When will selective gear be piloted on white-fish trawlers? Given that there has been no take-up of voluntary gear selectivity measures in the nephrops fishery, why has the cabinet secretary not proposed discussing a mandatory requirement at the December talks, which would be useful? The cabinet secretary wants an increase in the cod TAC. Will he argue for a reduction in days at sea to compensate for that? I emphasise that I, along with others, see reductions in days at sea as a last-ditch measure.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should be finishing, Mr Harper.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Given that the ICES advice is to count all mortality, which would provide the fastest route to stock recovery, has the minister calculated the future cost to the industry of taking the slower route of going for an increase in the TAC with, I hope, a concomitant reduction in mortality? Voluntary gear selectivity measures have not been taken up. Real-time closures have, so far, not closed anything. There are less than half a dozen on-board observers to—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Mr Harper, you should be finished.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Unlike John Scott, I should declare an interest in that I am a son of a fisherman, albeit one for whom fishing is more of a hobby now.

I congratulate Richard Lochhead on his debut in a Scottish Parliament debate on fisheries. Having read the press in recent months, I know how much importance he places on the firsts that he has achieved since taking office. To date, we have been treated to many such momentous achievements: the first time a Scottish minister has been invited to London for a meeting with his UK counterparts; the first occasion on which UK ministers have come to Scotland for a meeting; and the first time that this particular Scottish minister has been involved in a fisheries council in Luxembourg. Leaving aside the veracity of such claims, I certainly take my hat off to Richard Lochhead for his news management.

I have been intrigued by the debate so far. As I am sure the cabinet secretary will acknowledge, previous debates ahead of the December fisheries council have been more than a little lively and tempers have come close to fraying on occasion. In fact, this must be the first debate on fisheries in this chamber in which Mr Lochhead has not been feverishly ringing the death knell of Scotland's fishing industry or, in keeping with the Christmas spirit of advent, counting down the days that we have left to save the industry.

Much as the SNP Government might wish to take credit for the current state of affairs, for all its bluster about putting fishing interests at the top of its political agenda it is worth asking, what is the real reason why we are in this position? Is it because of the tireless pursuit by Mr Lochhead and his colleagues—recognising the need to bring catching capacity more in line with available stocks—of a fully funded and voluntary decommissioning scheme back in 2003? Is it because any proposed cut in a specific quota was welcomed by the SNP as a prudent and sensible step to allow stocks to recover and fishing opportunities to be safeguarded in the longer term? Is it because Mr Lochhead saluted the achievement of the previous Scottish Executive in safeguarding the 6-to-12 mile limit, the Shetland box, multi-annual fisheries agreements and the establishment of the influential regional advisory councils? Sadly, in all three respects, the answer is no. Although I am certainly encouraged to hear less talk of crisis and impending doom, I am absolutely clear that the groundwork for this more harmonious state of affairs was laid by my colleague Ross Finnie, as Sarah Boyack said, often in the teeth of the most vitriolic opposition from Mr Lochhead and his colleagues.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

While I accept Ross Finnie's role in all this, does Mr McArthur accept that it was under Ross Finnie's watch that we lost something like 600 white-fish boats and up to 5,000 fish workers' jobs in Scotland?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It shows brass neck on an Olympian scale for the Tories to lecture anybody about the interests of the fishing industry, given that they sold the pass when we entered the CFP back in the 1970s.

All that said, I genuinely wish the cabinet secretary well in the upcoming negotiations. I know what the negotiations entail. Mr Lochhead and his team of officials should be able to count on the whole-hearted support of the Parliament as they seek to promote the interests of Scotland's fishing industry and the communities that it serves.

As Mike Rumbles said, the EU-Norway talks that precede the December fisheries council are crucial. In many respects, those negotiations settle many of the issues in relation to most of the key stocks for the Scottish fleet, including cod, haddock, whiting, North Sea herring and plaice.

There is a growing sense that the Commission negotiations operate with insufficient political oversight in those talks. That was acknowledged in the Government's recent strategy on Europe. I would welcome any clarification that the cabinet secretary can offer about how the talks will be managed this year and in future.

Looking ahead to the EU council in December, in light of the view of ICES that cod stocks are being harvested at more sustainable levels, can the cabinet secretary offer any reassurance about the likelihood of achieving the 15 per cent increase in the cod quota for next year? As he said, such an increase would be sustainable without increasing cod mortality, by bearing down on the issue of discarded fish.

On other stocks, I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary's comments on megrim, which is a key stock for the Orkney fleet in terms of available swaps. However, it seems barely credible that an 80 per cent cut in whiting catch is being proposed. I would be grateful for an assurance that cuts on such a scale will be resisted.

Despite the less fevered atmosphere leading up to the talks in December, the cabinet secretary will be aware of the serious concern that has been caused by suggestions that a 25 per cent cut in effort might be put forward by the European Commission. Although such an unwarranted measure would have a disastrous effect throughout the whole Scottish fleet, the cabinet secretary will acknowledge the particular difficulties that it would present to fishermen in my constituency and Shetland, given the time that it already takes them to reach their fishing grounds. That blunt instrument, which is much loved in certain quarters of the Commission, must not be extended. I hope that the SNP Government can offer the Parliament a guarantee that it will not sign up to any extension to the days-at-sea restrictions.

It has long been recognised that a more flexible and pragmatic approach to managing effort could be achieved through kilowatt days. I understand that proposals for such a regime are now favoured by most of the member states, although its introduction in 2008 is unlikely.

Given that one size rarely fits all, and in keeping with the more regionalised approach that has been established under the regional advisory councils, will the cabinet secretary comment on the scope for introducing a kilowatt days scheme in the North Sea, possibly on a pilot basis?

I know that the industry has made proposals for real-time closures, to which a number of members have referred. They would be concentrated on smaller targeted areas that are known to be critical for spawning at certain times of year.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

No. I am in my last minute.

I welcome those proposals, and I hope that the Government and the European Commission will recognise that they would make a valuable contribution to managing stocks in a sustainable way.

Historically, and at times this morning, debates on fishing have focused on the seat on which the Scottish minister's backside resides. The Scottish fishing industry recognises that what comes out of the other end of Scottish ministers matters most.

I wish Mr Lochhead the best of luck. I know that he will be disappointed to hear that I do not intend to return his compliment of many years by offering to accompany him to Brussels next month. However, he will have the support of the Parliament in his efforts to safeguard the interests of our fishing industry, if not to rearrange the seating plan.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Unlike Liam McArthur, I shall try not to carp from the sidelines. I promise to make that my last fish-related pun. I welcome this chance for the Parliament to debate the issues surrounding Scotland's fisheries in advance of the latest round of EU negotiations on fishing quotas.

The fishing industry is hugely significant to our country and economy, but times have been tough. As has been mentioned, since 1999 more than 1,000 Scottish-based fishing vessels have been decommissioned. The number of people employed in the catching sector has dropped by nearly 36 per cent in the past decade, with employment in the industry dropping from 0.4 to 0.2 per cent of the labour force in the same time. That clearly indicates the difficult time that Scotland's fishing industry has had.

Behind those statistics are real people living real lives, and the impact of the decline of our fishing industry on our fishing communities, such as Peterhead, Fraserburgh and other places in the north of Scotland, has been telling. The effect on the morale and spirit of the many people who are no longer able to work in an industry that they thought would sustain them as it had sustained generations before them is devastating. The hope that they could rely on the fishing industry has been swept away from under their feet.

The effect on the social fabric of our traditional fishing communities has also been felt. We are all aware of the problems of drug abuse that afflict the communities in the north-east of Scotland. The problems have been well reported. All too often, they lead to individual human tragedies.

That picture is familiar to the many areas of the country that have witnessed or experienced some form of industrial decline. It should be no surprise, then, that the decline of Scotland's fishing industry has had far-reaching consequences.

The decline has been a particularly bitter pill to swallow when we consider that while in Scotland our white-fish fleet has been drastically reduced, the fleets in other countries, such as Spain, Ireland and Iceland, have expanded. While our Scottish industry has had to bear the brunt of conservation efforts, others have patently not had to do so to the same extent.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I do not dispute for a second the difficulties that the fishing industry and the communities in which it is based have faced in recent years. However, how does the member square his comments with those of the president of the SFF, Bertie Armstrong, that the fishing fleet is now more in line with the available stocks that are to be caught?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I assure Mr McArthur that I shall turn later to the comments of Bertie Armstrong.

We cannot just look back in anger on what has happened to the industry. As cod stocks in the North Sea show that they are recovering and the industry shows that it is beginning to stabilise, now is the time to move our fishing industry forward. Although it has declined relative to its former position, we should take stock of the fact that we are still among the largest sea fishing nations in Europe, with, as has been mentioned, Scottish waters accounting for about a quarter of the EU total. Scottish landings of fish represent more than 60 per cent of the landings into the UK as a whole, and the total value of fish landed by Scottish vessels in 2006 was some £370 million. Although the Scottish fishing industry has declined, it is still in a fairly strong position. It is in a position of greater strength now as we seek to drive it forward following the election of the pro-fisheries SNP Government in May.

I return to the comments from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. We have seen the impact of the SNP Government almost immediately. I am a member of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, and at our meeting before last we took evidence from Bertie Armstrong of the SFF. He told us that, since the election of an SNP Government, all of a sudden—as if by magic—the UK Government has been prepared to listen to what Scotland's fishing representatives have to say. When I mentioned that in our debate on the Government's EU priorities two weeks ago, Malcolm Chisholm somehow interpreted it as my vindicating the current set-up and the UK Government. He was wrong: it was a vindication of the election of the SNP Government.

By the election of an SNP Government alone, the position of Scotland's fishing industry has been made more secure, but let us imagine how much more secure it could be with Richard Lochhead arguing the case for Scotland's fishing communities directly in the European Union. I do not know whether members are avid readers of The Herald, but in today's edition there is a letter, signed by representatives of the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association, that shows why it is a necessity for Richard Lochhead and the Scottish ministers to lead from the front and get right into the heart of the EU.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am in my last minute.

The letter states:

"the UK has been conspicuous by its absence in putting forward alternatives"

to the policy on discards,

"and the UK Fisheries Ministers have voted in favour of every deal to bring about the status quo. The Scottish Government has, by contrast, since May been active in promoting alternatives."

Those are not my words, but the words of the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association.

That is why I support the Government's aim to have Richard Lochhead lead negotiations for the UK in the future, so that he can call for a sensible increase in the quota against the backdrop of a rise in available stocks in the North Sea. It would, of course, be remiss of me not to say that, although I support that effort in a devolved context, I maintain that our position would be stronger as an independent member state of the EU.

Our fishing communities, as evidenced by the letter in The Herald today, will be right behind Richard Lochhead in his efforts. I trust that the Parliament will be too.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

If I was not going to make a consensual speech, I might ask where we would have been if we had followed the SNP's advice on the strategy for sustainable fisheries in the past few years. Where would that have left the industry? However, I am going to make a consensual speech, so I will not dwell any further on that point.

I join the cabinet secretary in welcoming trainee skippers from Banff and Buchan College. Along with the cabinet secretary and others, I made representations to support the retention of the courses that they are taking at the college. I am sure that those courses will continue to provide vital training. It is good to see the trainees here in Parliament.

Each year, we gather ahead of the December fisheries negotiations. I remember hoping during the election campaign that I would be back to make this speech. I must concede, however, that I had not imagined that I would be wishing Mr Lochhead all the best on coming back from Europe with the best deal for Scottish fishermen, but that is exactly what I hope will happen—although I hope that it will be done by working with, rather than against, UK ministers.

The fishing industry is crucial not just to Scotland as a whole but to the economy of the north-east in particular, through both the catching and processing sectors. In my speech, I want to focus on the tough times that our fish processors have faced. However, I will consider first the general debate on securing sustainable fisheries for the Scottish fleet.

I begin by quoting what might be seen as an unlikely source for me—Mr Stewart Stevenson. In the equivalent debate last year, he said:

"The first clear point is that ... we all want a successful, sustainable industry. We may differ about the route to that and about some of the difficulties that we face in delivering that, but let us at least nail the fact that we all share that objective".—[Official Report, 13 December 2006; c 30327.]

That was a welcome tone to bring to that debate, and it is a point that we should be clear about today: we all want to see the best for Scotland's fisheries. That has not always been the tenor of the debate—including today—but it is the right approach to take.

I have been supportive of membership and reform of the CFP, for example through the establishment of regional advisory councils and progress to greater local management of stocks. I hope that the Scottish fishing industry can be rewarded at this year's negotiations for the huge strides that it has taken on sustainability. It is right that real efforts are being made to ensure that the industry is viewed as it should be—as a vital and successful one that is coming through the hard times following decommissioning. Last year's mid-year review of the fleet by Seafish showed significantly higher fish sales prices, which has raised optimism. Average forecast profits of white-fish vessels show considerable improvement, and I understand that there have been significant increases in profits at harbours.

While there has been cause for greater optimism in the catching sector with that increase in prices, there have been additional difficulties for the processing sector. It has had to deal with the double whammy of higher prices and often not enough products to process—we remember being told of days when only one box of fish was landed at Aberdeen harbour.

I might not see eye to eye with all the processors on an analysis of the solutions but, having met Andrew Charles of the Scottish Seafood Processors Federation, I know that that part of the industry does not feel that adequate attention has been placed on its plight, with 20 or so processing businesses having gone out of business in the space of only a few years. Measures that might have helped that industry have not proved to be effective thus far. In Aberdeen and across the north-east, the fish processing industry has a proud tradition, and it is still crucial to the local economy.

I have pressed the minister and his predecessor on ways of relieving some of the severe pressures on the processing industry, such as by enabling processors to access financial instrument for fisheries guidance—FIFG—funding streams and, in particular, by enabling processors to benefit from business rates relief schemes due to financial hardship. However, although businesses in the sector have gone bust, I understand that it is still the case that none of them has benefited from business rates relief. I also understand that there are no new proposals on that.

I am not pretending for one second that it will be easy to resolve the situation, but I seek reassurance that this vital part of our fishing industry will not be ignored when it comes to Government action. A good settlement at the negotiations will be crucial for the processing sector. I hope that the minister will be in dialogue with fish processors about the difficult economic situation in which they find themselves.

There has been a great deal of debate today about the science of fishing and its accuracy. For me, that leads to the essential question about how much to invest in the science and how we ensure that we get the best possible science. It would be helpful if the minister talked about plans for future investment to support the science in this area, because the hope is that better science and a more accurate reflection of stocks will be better news for the industry and, of course, will help to inform the best policies for guaranteeing long-term sustainability.

At the negotiations, I hope that every effort will be made to continue the policy of having sustainable stocks for the future and, at the same time, a sustainable fishing industry on land and offshore, because it is still very important to Scotland.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

As I represent the land-locked constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun, it might seem a bit odd that I am speaking in the debate. However, as we know, fishing is a key industry from which all Scotland benefits and this is a great opportunity to demonstrate that members who do not come from a traditional fishing background whole-heartedly support the industry.

The importance of the fishing industry to Scotland and the European Union cannot be overstated. The total value of the catch landed by the Scottish fleet stands at around £370 million, as Jamie Hepburn said earlier. The industry employs just under 20,000 people directly, and just under 50,000 when we include related employment. That is significant indeed.

Scotland is one of the largest sea-fishing nations in Europe. A quarter of all European fishing waters lie off Scotland and the Scottish fleet catches about 70 per cent of all cod caught in the waters off Scotland. Although the industry contributes so much to the economy and is strategically important in the European context, we have little influence and no direct voice to support our industry or to promote much of the good practice and responsible management that has been evident in recent years.

Over the years, my impression has been that the industry is always teetering on the brink. It seems to lurch from overfishing to no fishing, and the consequent damage that those approaches have caused to stock and to local communities has been devastating. Despite that, our industry—and its significant Scottish interest—continues to be represented by UK ministers, whose record of achievement has not exactly been notable.

About 25 years ago there was a song about the ills facing Scotland, and the fishing industry featured even then:

"In our northern waters our fishermen are hunting fishing for their lives in the cruellest sea returning home with little caught as foreign boats just scoop the lot fish for all our comrades but none for you and me."

That, of course, refers to the nonsensical arrangement that saw non-Scottish boats taking fish from our waters while our fleet was tied up and banned from fishing those waters. That is still going on, to some degree, as Tavish Scott told us earlier in his remarks on the Polish fleet. The lunacy of throwing fish back into the sea was shown on television just the other night. Common sense must come from somewhere to return some sanity to the way in which Europe manages the industry.

The industry in Scotland has learned some hard lessons over the years, and it is playing a leading role in developing new ideas for fish stock management. There are already sensible ideas in place, such as the voluntary real-time closure scheme, which basically identifies areas that lie within the fishing zones where juvenile stocks are located and, by agreement, closes those areas to allow the stocks to recover.

Technology can also play a vital part in fish stock management and Scottish companies are already at the forefront of such development, which makes a real contribution to the preservation of stocks while allowing the industry to continue and develop. Electronic logging can help skippers to identify juvenile hot spots; that should be seen as a major tool in migration prediction. Technology can also reward skippers with extra days at sea if they can verify that the amount of cod that they have caught is less than 5 per cent of their catch. That is particularly important to the prawn and haddock boats, as I understand it.

Sound management and responsible fishing, allied to technological innovation, are strengths that Scotland offers in managing the crucial and sustainable resource that we are blessed to have been given. Our colleagues at Westminster should trust our minister and invite him to lead the negotiations on behalf of the UK. It should not be a question of our having to demand and Westminster refusing; we should have been asked to lead.

ICES is more encouraging in its latest report than it has been for a number of years, as it suggests that cod stocks in the North Sea are recovering. Surely that is evidence that conservation efforts are working and that a case can be made for increasing quotas. No one is suggesting that there should be a mad dash to plunder the stock and return us to the chaos of recent years; a sensible and balanced approach can work. If not, the danger of quotas remaining pegged and stock increasing will mean more scenes on TV of fish having to be discarded.

The Parliament should support our Government in its argument that our ministers should lead the negotiations in December. Our ministers are experienced, trusted, and have been in close contact with the industry for many years. That is no slight on anyone else. In a game of cards, we do not refuse to play a winning hand when we have it. In many ways, Scotland's fishermen are still

"fishing for their lives in the cruellest sea".

Parliament needs to send them a clear message that we are right behind them and will support the industry now and in the future.

The industry already trusts its elected members and we, in turn, should do the same, no matter which party we represent. Scotland has a great natural resource to share with our European partners, and we have a lot to offer in experience and expertise. We have led by example and shown how the industry can conserve and develop. I ask the Parliament to place its trust in our Government and help it to deliver a better deal for Scotland's fishermen.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Earlier in the debate, Peter Peacock said that he was on the side of the fish. It is important that we bear that in mind. However, I suppose I must ask whether the Government is on the side of the fish.

For the past eight years, we have heard the SNP say that more and more fish should be taken from the seas, despite the consistent scientific evidence to the contrary. Even this morning, Dave Thompson said that the seas were full of fish, which might reflect Alex Salmond's comment, a few years ago, that we could walk from here to Norway on the backs of haddock.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

He can walk on water.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

He has not changed much then, has he?

I am pleased that, in his new job, Richard Lochhead is taking a more measured approach than he might have done in the past, and facing up to his new responsibilities. Scotland needs to take a serious stance over conservation and the way in which we create a sustainable fishing industry and communities.

I will come back to the science, but first, I will address some of the fishing communities' issues. Over the past few years, they have been hard pressed because of external conditions and circumstances, and the enterprise agencies have given them a lot of support to deal with some of the issues of downsizing and reskilling and so on that have been vital in the context of the pressure that the industries have faced.

Further to Jamie Hepburn's comments on the role of the Scottish Government, will the minister perhaps explain what is happening to economic development in the north-east of Scotland's fishing communities in which he purports to be so interested? Who is responsible for dealing with skills issues? I am not clear where that responsibility rests in the context of the changes that have been made to Scottish Enterprise. It is interesting that the Government has adopted different approaches to Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. As a result, people in Lossiemouth—which only recently moved into the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area—can access resources that are perhaps not be available to communities in Fraserburgh and Peterhead. At least, people in Lossiemouth would be able to do that if the Government had not also reduced Highlands and Islands Enterprise's spending. It seems that, although people in the HIE area need to fight for a skills budget, those in places such as Fraserburgh and Peterhead are debarred from qualifications because the Government did not announce what would happen to skills when it decided that Scottish Enterprise's resources should be moved away from support for local areas towards major projects at the centre. In his role as fisheries minister, is the cabinet secretary asking serious questions of the enterprise ministers about the support that they provide to fishing communities? What sorts of answers has he received?

Much of Richard Lochhead's speech, this year as in previous years, focused on who gets a seat at the table. Let us be serious about where we need to be with fishing in future. We need to move towards the science. The fishing communities accept that. When Bertie Armstrong gave evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee a couple of weeks ago, he said clearly that where they had been in the past is not where they are now. They are interested in an ecologically sustainable fishery. They recognise that they cannot keep taking fish from the sea and that there must be a better set of management arrangements. They are aware of, and fit in with, the science. There is now a greater convergence than was the case in the past. And what contribution does the minister make to the debate? It is simply, "We need a seat at the table." We need ideas about how to take the fishing industry forward. We need to have the imagination to work with colleagues from other European countries to see what can be done about different fishing techniques and better identification and targeting of the areas that need to be conserved. Those are precisely the issues on which Scotland can and should take a lead. The issue is not who sits round the negotiating table. If we want to contribute to the future management of the fishing industry in Scotland—rather than go down the route that was taken in Canada and the United States of America, where the stocks were fished out and people are now belatedly moving towards a conservation-based approach—we need to move in the direction that I have outlined.

I am pleased that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, of which I am a member, will consider fishing issues not in the run-up to December 2008 but from the middle of 2008, so that we can try to think about how we might take matters forward. The task that ministers face is to contribute to that debate about how we achieve better management of fisheries and take the issue forward, rather than focus narrowly on who sits where.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

There can be no doubt of the many benefits that independence would bring to Scotland, not least for European negotiations on fisheries. If we were ever in doubt about that, we need only remind ourselves of the comments of Mr Aron, the then head of the Executive's office in Brussels. He wrote:

"UK Ministers take the lead in negotiating on behalf of the UK whilst Executive Ministers simply watch proceedings from the sidelines. Unfortunate examples are where there is no seat for the Minister in the Council room during the meeting so they have to follow discussions from the salle d'écoute alongside officials."

Scotland has clearly lacked a voice on fisheries, but we have been told repeatedly that Scotland gains from being in the UK. "A stronger voice in Europe," we are told. "A rather timid whisper" might be a better description. Other members will no doubt point to poor, unlucky Ireland. Consider the state of unhappy Ireland: it has to think for itself; it has to speak for itself; it cannot know the pleasure of sitting at the back of the room in enforced silence while others negotiate on its behalf. Poor, unfortunate Ireland.

What are the gains from UK negotiations? Since 1999, some 1,000 Scottish vessels have been deregistered, some 3,000 jobs in the catching sector have been lost and employment in fishing as a percentage of the labour force has been halved. Such are the gains of UK negotiations. Can we claim a magnificent success in conserving our stocks as a result? Our fishing communities have paid a terrible price, but our stocks are by no means safe.

Our problem is clearly our lack of voice. That was highlighted in the recent evidence of Bertie Armstrong—he might have been mentioned once or twice already. His relief at the accession of a Government that is prepared to stand up for Scotland was palpable. The words that he used cannot be repeated too often, so let me repeat them again:

"If I describe the current situation between Edinburgh and Whitehall as perhaps not lacking in creative tension, one of the outcomes of that has been that access to Whitehall is less difficult. It would be wrong to say that we are sought after, but the industry's grass-roots views are now regarded as being as relevant as they have ever been."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 7 November 2007; c 222-3.]

Well done, Richard.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member perhaps repeat Bertie Armstrong's other words? He also said that the Scottish fishing industry's aims and objectives are truly aligned with those of the UK. Therefore, we have a stronger voice. Is that not the case?

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Bertie Armstrong's words are perfectly clear. I remind members that he said:

"one of the outcomes of that has been that access to Whitehall is less difficult."

Bertie Armstrong might have been polite, but the truth is clearly contained in those words, which I repeat:

"one of the outcomes of that has been that access to Whitehall is less difficult."

The Scottish Fishermen's Federation is not the only organisation to have gained from the accession of a new Government that is determined to fight Scotland's corner. When fishing vessels were recently fitted with global positioning system trackers, the data gathered were originally available only to the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—CEFAS—in Lowestoft and not to Fisheries Research Services in Aberdeen, even if the vessels operated out of Scottish ports. Happily, that situation has also now been rectified. A situation in which data are withheld and Scotland cannot maximise its research potential is serious indeed.

Let me give just three examples of why Scotland should be at the forefront of fisheries and marine research. As has already been noted, this is the first time in six years that ICES has not recommended a zero cod catch and there are hopes for the beginning of a cod recovery. However, cod ecology is complex—potentially more complex than we might imagine.

Recent tagging studies show that some cod stocks are made up of individuals that are either locally resident or migratory. Mature adult cod show fidelity to spawning grounds. Tagging shows that they return to natal spawning and that, in Scottish waters, such spawning grounds have persisted for at least 50 years. Sub-stock structure has been demonstrated by otolith microchemistry. Fish from spawning areas off Clyde, Shetland, Buchan and in the Moray Firth show persistent differences in isotope signatures. That suggests limited movement of fish between those areas. I could cite more evidence—and am happy to provide the relevant references to anyone who wants them—but the basic point has been made.

Although sea fisheries are the exclusive competency of the EU, the UK and the Scottish ministers have exclusive competency over fishing rights up to six miles offshore. Between six and 12 miles offshore, non-UK fishing is restricted by historical precedent. In light of the above evidence, perhaps we should manage Scottish inshore resident populations separately.

There are other complications. Overfishing can cause evolutionary reductions in both age and length at maturity. Those issues have been implicated in the collapse of the Atlantic cod—the Canadian cod stocks that collapsed spectacularly in the late 1980s and have never recovered. I have not even touched on the complexity that is added by global warming.

I hope that I have convinced all members of the great complications involved in understanding fish population dynamics and in estimating sustainable catches and, thus, of the need for high-quality research. In that hope, I come to my main point—yes, there is a point—for which no doubt all members are holding their breath. Alternatively, perhaps members are just making a desperate effort to stop having to listen to me—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

We are being polite, Bill.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

It could be politeness, but that sounds unlikely from you, Mike.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Members should not use first names, please.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Sorry. That sounds unlikely from you, Mike Rumbles.

In the longer term, there is a need to further the scientific advice that underpins policy decisions. One line along which that might be developed is the marine science Scotland pooling initiative, a bid for which has been submitted to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council. The initiative involves seven of Scotland's universities and includes the Fisheries Research Service in Aberdeen and the Scottish Association for Marine Science. With the inclusion of the FRS—which is charged with supplying fisheries advice to the Scottish Government—marine science Scotland would provide the means and incentive to harness and direct university expertise in policy-relevant ways. I hope that the cabinet secretary will give serious consideration to that project.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

There can be no doubt that today Robin Harper has the best tie—I applaud his colour scheme, although we may need to apply relative stability to it in the future. Des McNulty mentioned the suggestion of the First Minister, Mr Salmond, that it was possible to walk across the North Sea on the backs of haddock. Most of us did not think that he needed the haddock.

This is an important debate, and Liberal Democrats strongly welcome the fact that it is taking place at the time of the EU-Norway negotiations. That is a useful step forward, and this evening we will back the Government motion. We were surprised that Mr Lochhead did not set out in more detail the Scottish and UK position on the EU-Norway negotiations, because that is of critical interest. I noted and welcomed the points that he made on cod—we know the position on that issue—but I hope that when winding up the Minister for Environment will deal with the serious current position of the EU-Norway negotiations and clarify the Scottish position on the matter, because important species issues are being addressed as we speak. He should also look at the different sectors of the industry, because there are different pressures. That has always been the case—there are always cycles in the inshore sector, the pelagic sector and the white-fish sector. Ministers should set out their thoughts on that issue in more detail.

All that needs to be said on what has been an endless theme in this morning's discussions—who sits where in the European Union—is that Mr Lochhead will now accept, if nothing else, that it is rather more difficult to be in government than in opposition.

Two other themes that members of all persuasions have raised frequently this morning are the science and discards. I agreed with Peter Peacock when he said, in response to an intervention, that science is not an exact science. [Laughter.] I suppose the point is that it is not exact. I hope that, when considering the science in the future, those who argued week in, week out, year in, year out, that the whole North Sea should be closed—there were many who did, including both scientists and non-Governmental organisations—will recognise that the responsible actions that were taken have led to a better position. If we always listened to the worst-case scenario on the science, there would not be one fisherman left in my constituency, in Mr Lochhead's constituency or in any other constituency in the country. There is a balance to be struck in arguments about the science. Richard Baker made a fair point about the importance of investment in science at the Fisheries Research Services laboratory in Aberdeen, at the Scottish Association for Marine Science laboratory in Dunstaffnage and at the North Atlantic Fisheries College in Shetland.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Does Tavish Scott agree that it would help if in the Scottish Government's response and in the European Commission's documents the two sides could agree on the science that is acceptable to them and could quote from the same sets of figures? That would make it much easier for people to understand papers when they receive them.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I have no difficulty agreeing with the general premise of Robin Harper's point.

Ted Brocklebank, who is no longer in the chamber, and many other members from all parties, made a fair point about discards. Some argue that that has been a problem for many years, and it has. However, the real issue is the quota management system. In a mixed fishery such as the white-fish industry, one cannot have a quota management system that does not produce discards—it is an inevitable consequence of such a system is that there will be discards. That problem must be tackled. If this morning Mr Lochhead was saying to Parliament that the task force that he is establishing with the industry and, no doubt, with scientists will consider the issue and that new options will be pursued, his comments are very welcome.

Liam McArthur was right to make a point about kilowatt hours—we understand that the European Commission is currently considering such a regime. When winding up, will the Minister for Environment express a view on that proposal, because the issue is fundamental to our fishing industries around the country, especially the white-fish industry?

It is important to make it clear that climate change arguments about changes in sea temperature have not been dismissed. Bill Turrell of the FRS—a scientist who is doing serious work in the area—has published a series of articles in Fishing News that indicate that climate change is a factor, although we do not know how big a factor it is.

I am grateful to Mr Lochhead for the answer that he gave me about the clawback that fishermen in my constituency are facing. I hope that he will challenge the European Union on the issue. However, I hope that he will also recognise that the "Radiant Star", skippered by Victor Laurenson, was launched last weekend in Whitby. She is a 22m steel white-fish boat, which was started in January and will arrive in Shetland before Christmas. The "Radiant Star" is a real sign of investment and confidence in the future—a sign that painful steps and restructuring are beginning to pay off. Mr Lochhead criticised those changes at the time, but they are now paying dividends for Victor Laurenson and his partnership as they move forward into the future.

This morning I spoke to Bertie Armstrong, who has been mentioned a great deal, about the crucial discussions that are taking place overseas between the EU and Norway. Members were right to say—Richard Lochhead was clear on the point—that those talks will set the terms for what happens in the December council. The issue that will not be sorted out at those talks but that will be sorted out in December is effort—days at sea. I hope that when winding up the Minister for Environment will set out the Government's position on that issue. As ministers know, the industry is concerned by the fact that the European Union wants a 25 per cent cut in days at sea. It is extraordinary that we can have a debate in Parliament in which discards are the main theme and that the Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs can appear on television on Tuesday night to talk about the issue, but that at the same time the European Union can propose a further reduction in days at sea, with the inevitable consequences that that will have for discards. Will the minister say how the Scottish Government proposes to address the issue of effort and the European Union's proposals on effort limitation?

The pelagic sector is vital and is going through difficult times. I was concerned by the 8 per cent cut in the mackerel quota. I note that the Irish Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food voted against it—she said that the science on which the cut was based was questionable. Representatives of the pelagic industry who have spoken to me have expressed the same view. I hope that ministers will reflect on that point, given that there is also likely to be a 35 per cent cut in the North Sea herring quota. It is a difficult time for the pelagic industry, and we look to ministers to make real progress in that area.

The quota system does not work in a mixed fishery. That is not only my view, but the view of the Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs. We should welcome that. There is a welcome return of investment in the white-fish sector, but the recovery is fragile and costs are higher. The pelagic sector faces real economic challenges. Above all, the industry needs fish to catch and time in which to catch them. That is the test to which we Liberal Democrats will hold Mr Lochhead as he enters discussions at the December council. However, he goes with our support, and we wish him well in those discussions.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

As my colleagues have said, we, too, welcome the debate, which is taking place well ahead of the fisheries council meeting next month. There has been an interesting and worthwhile exchange of views that I hope will assist the cabinet secretary and his officials as they prepare for the meeting.

The Scottish fishing industry has been dealt with harshly in recent years. Now that the cabinet secretary is in government, he has the opportunity, with his UK counterpart, to secure the level playing field for our fishermen that he promised in opposition. We offer him our support as he embarks on this year's negotiations to secure the best possible package for the forthcoming year.

Some sectors of the fishing industry are now doing reasonably well but, sadly, it has taken the decimation of the Scottish fleet to get them there.

In August 2006, there were 1,092 fewer Scotland-based vessels than there were in 1999. During that time, nearly 3,000 fishermen lost their jobs. Because, in the white-fish industry, five onshore jobs depend on every one at sea, many people in north-east fishing communities such as Fraserburgh and Peterhead are experiencing real hardship as a result of the harsh treatment that has been meted out to our fishermen in recent years—to say nothing of the social consequences on which Jamie Hepburn touched in his speech. I agree with Richard Baker that the processing sector still faces real difficulties.

It is a credit to those who remain in the industry that they have led the way in taking voluntary conservation measures in the North Sea. It is essential that the EU is made to recognise what they have achieved, particularly in relation to the health of the cod stock. There has not been the 15 per cent reduction in fishing mortality that the European Commission quotes; rather, there has been a 36 per cent reduction and a significantly greater reduction in fishing effort than it recognises.

It is vital that efforts to assist the recovery of cod stocks—and to conserve other species—continue. Scientists and fishermen alike agree on that. However, as John Scott said, a sensible balance must be struck between allowing stocks to recover and preserving the livelihoods of our fishermen and those who process their products. That is why we welcome the on-going review of the cod recovery plan and support the cabinet secretary in pursuing his plans for a sustainable future for our fisheries.

The Scottish Government's blueprint is, by and large, a sensible document and we broadly support the actions that are proposed in it. We are particularly pleased by its emphasis on securing more regional and national management of our fisheries and we hope that that aim can be achieved as part of a serious effort to tackle the associated problems of unfair quotas and discards. Such an effort will ultimately benefit the environment, sustainable fish stocks, consumers and our fishing communities.

In recent days, there has been a great deal of media interest in the practice of discarding caught fish that are over quotas. We all agree that that practice is totally abhorrent to all reasonable people, including our fishermen, and that its continuation at such a high level is scandalous. Wasting up to 60 per cent of the cod that are caught in the North Sea is disgraceful. Our ministers must find the means to tackle the problem, whether by adopting the Norwegian approach of punishing people for catching undersized fish, getting people to pay a nominal amount for fish that are over quota in total catches, or some other monitored scheme to ensure stock sustainability. For once in my life I agree with Mike Rumbles, who said that dealing with the scandal of discards is perhaps the most important thing that ministers can achieve next month. Such an achievement would bring great credit to them.

It is encouraging that cod stocks in the North Sea have recovered to the point that scientists can advise this year, for the first time since 2003, that a zero catch is not necessary. The Scottish fishing industry is to be commended for its pioneering efforts to find more effective and focused ways of protecting the cod population.

Scotland's fishermen have high expectations of the cabinet secretary this year. They are looking for a significantly better settlement than they have been used to recently. They, and we, are looking to our representatives on the fisheries council to negotiate an increase in the cod TAC alongside sensible and practical measures to prevent young fish being unintentionally caught in the North Sea mixed fisheries. I am glad that the cabinet secretary has given a commitment on that.

Our representatives must ensure that a balanced range of conservation measures is in place that will secure a sustainable future for our fishing industry. The current waste of precious marine resources makes no ecological, economic or ethical sense whatsoever, and that waste must be curtailed. It is particularly encouraging that Scotland's haddock, mackerel and langoustine fisheries are now committed to sustainability. I was pleased to hear about that.

I have focused on the white-fish sector, which I know best, but other members have spoken in detail about the diverse other fisheries around our coastline. As Jamie McGrigor said, different solutions are needed for different fisheries so that measures to conserve stocks in one sector do not penalise those who fish in a different sector, as has happened with the now discredited one-size-fits-all approach. Different solutions must be explored and implemented.

Our ministers will face hard negotiations in the next few weeks. We wish them luck in their endeavours and look to them to bring back a good settlement for the fishermen who have put so much voluntary effort into securing a sustainable future for their industry. They have put their trust in the Government; I hope that that trust will be justly rewarded in Brussels next month.

John Scott explained the reasons for our technical amendment to the motion. I am pleased that those reasons have been understood and accepted throughout the chamber. The Labour amendment, in turn, is also acceptable to us.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. Like the member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, I have a large land-locked constituency, but the issues that affect our fishermen also affect people in my constituency—the quality of the fish they can buy, for example, is important—and they have a genuine concern for Scotland's fishing communities. Many members have mentioned the BBC programme that has brought the fishing industry into our living rooms and the daily challenges that the fishing community faces.

I welcomed the first three quarters of the cabinet secretary's speech—

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

That is not bad.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Indeed. That is not bad for us.

The cabinet secretary wants a deal that recognises and rewards sustainability, that recognises that our top three commercial stocks are of the highest quality and are sustainable, and that will provide incentives rather than penalties. Who would disagree with those aims? However, he then reverted to type and SNP back benchers fell back on traditional flag waving. They think that all would be well with the world if we sat Richard Lochhead at the top table, as he would argue a different line on behalf of the UK than that which Jonathan Shaw will argue. If that is the case, I would welcome clarification from the Minister for Environment on what the differences would be in practical terms, given that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation has told the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee that the UK Government's position is broadly in line with its position. I take it that the UK minister will use the same arguments that the federation would use. Why let the facts get in the way of cranking up a good old constitutional division? I suppose that that is the real issue.

What are the facts? ICES's advice represents a significant shift in scientific perception of the stock. As we know, for the first time in many years, ICES has advised that the stock is being harvested at sustainable levels, and it has not advised a zero catch. Its advice also confirms the unacceptably high rate of discards in the fishery. The science indicates that if fishing were conducted with the status quo mortality rate of 0.54, the corresponding total available catch would be more than double that set in 2007 and there would be an increase of more than 50 per cent in the biomass.

We all agree that the dumping of fish over the sides of boats must end, but perhaps we differ about the method that should be used to reduce discards. I fully appreciate the case that Mike Rumbles and Ted Brocklebank made. They said that we can tackle the issue by allowing fishermen to land everything they catch and paying them a percentage of that value. That might be a superficially attractive approach to some people, but it would do nothing to reduce the amount of undersized or juvenile stock being caught. Surely that is the real target. I would prefer to incentivise the industry by encouraging it to continue to change its practices to reduce the excess stocks that are being caught and reduce fishing mortality. That will not be easy for a mixed-stock fleet, but if we can bring fishing mortality to the appropriate levels, we will have done what we can to seek to ensure that the biomass responds and rebuilds.

Progress has certainly been made. In 1999, the fishing mortality rate in the North Sea was estimated at 1.27. In June, ICES estimated that the mortality rate in 2006 had been 0.76 and that the rate had fallen again this year to 0.63. The figures are going in the right direction. Contrary to the view that Dave Thompson expressed, previous Executives did take steps to reduce mortality. There were voluntary real-time closures, observers were used and there was research on gear selection. I am not sure whether those measures were the draconian measures that the cabinet secretary noted, but they have certainly gone some way towards reducing mortality rates.

If we are to achieve our target of a 15 per cent total allowable catch increase, we must convince our fellow Europeans that we can implement a number of measures in time for next year's fishing that will prevent any further targeting of cod, reduce discards, protect the 2005 and future cohort classes, encourage the avoidance of cod and reduce cod mortality in the small-mesh fisheries. I want to focus on some of those measures.

Can we use the evidence from our voluntary pilot scheme—in which areas are closed when an abundance of undersized cod are present—to convince others to do likewise, or can we extend the scheme to other fleets? There have been discussions on that issue with Denmark.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I can reassure the member that we are pursuing the matter. Indeed, I will meet the Danish Government on Monday, when I hope to obtain its support for voluntary real-time closures, which are having a positive impact.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I welcome that reassurance and wish the cabinet secretary well in next week's discussions with Danish ministers. Through its genuine commitment to real-time closures, the Scottish fleet has brought about significant changes in stock levels. It is a measure that protects future year classes, discourages discarding and encourages cod avoidance.

Observers are an important part of the partnership. It is important that their role continues and is expanded. Some people argue that there is a case for establishing a small reference fleet, full observation of which could demonstrate what is happening with discards throughout the fleet. I would like the minister to say, either in what remains of the debate or in correspondence, whether he is prepared to consider that suggestion and how he thinks we could provide financial encouragement for further use of observers in the fleet, to observe discards and changes in fishing patterns.

The factoring of effort perhaps provides the widest scope for offering fishermen effective and practical incentives to change their behaviour. In particular, we should consider how we can encourage and reward the fishermen who avoid known spawning areas and who avoid fishing during spawning periods. We should think about incentives that could be provided to encourage our EU partners to look more sympathetically at such practices.

As Liam McArthur said, the idea of kilowatt days has been proposed, although views vary on whether it is an attractive solution. I would like to hear how the minister thinks that proposal should be progressed.

The final issue that I will deal with is gear selection and increased selectivity. The FRS has done good work that is providing encouraging results and I understand that further trials involving commercial white-fish vessels that are equipped with new gear are under way in the North Sea.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member agree that it is extremely difficult for fishermen who fish for prawns to gear in such a way that they will not also take white fish? Does she agree that it would help science if fishermen were allowed to land everything they catch? That way, the scientists would know exactly what they were measuring, because it would be there on the quayside. That is how the system works in Faroe and Iceland and, to an extent, in Norway. Should the EU not follow that example?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The minister may wish to pursue Ted Brocklebank's suggestion, but I do not necessarily agree with it. I do not think that encouraging fishermen to land their bycatch and rewarding them for doing so reduces the bycatch. We must move on from saying, "We cannot find a gear solution to the problem." We must build on the good work that is being done. It is not true that all is lost or that nothing can be done; science and industry continue to change, so we can find a solution, provided that the industry and the Government have the will and provide the finance.

I appreciate that gear selection is not an easy issue, not least because cod dive downwards when they are caught in a net, but we must make progress on it. I would like the minister to consider how we can encourage the fishermen of other member states that are thought to contribute to cod mortality to take up gear selection, on which the Scottish fleet has shown a willingness that has been lacking among some of our European partners.

I have described a few of the options. Changes can be made. Sustainability can be achieved other than through a blunt cut in the number of days at sea. There are better ways of reducing mortality and I hope that they will prevail.

Richard Lochhead made the case for the need to work in partnership—with the industry, with conservationists, with scientists and with colleagues across the UK. If we work in partnership, our case will be stronger, our arguments more forceful and our success more likely. Labour members wish the minister and his UK colleague Jonathan Shaw every success in the forthcoming negotiations. Together, we must ensure that the Scottish fishing industry has a long-term and sustainable future. That is what we all want, and we wish Richard Lochhead every success as he seeks to achieve that goal.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I sympathise with Willie Coffey, who at the start of his speech mentioned the difficulty of speaking on a subject on which a large number of members have considerably more knowledge. As Tavish Scott and Richard Lochhead—who have considerable knowledge of fisheries—sit next to me, I feel much the same way.

The debate has been different from previous fisheries debates in the Parliament, in that it has not been a doom-and-gloom debate—even if one or two members have tried to introduce an element of that. It sends a strong and positive message to the young trainee skippers from Banff and Buchan College who are sitting in the gallery. If we strip out the usual politics, we find that there is a feeling that the industry has a future because policies are being pursued that can give young people a future in it. The fact that Richard Lochhead will go to take part in the negotiations in a positive spirit of optimism that he can achieve things for Scotland is also different.

Before I come to the substance of my speech, I will consider some of the other speeches that have been made. I do not think that I have sat through a debate in which I have heard so many instructions being given to, and requests made of, the final speaker. Members must have realised that, as I was to make the summing-up speech, I might be in some difficulty.

Tavish Scott was correct to ask what the Scottish position is on the EU-Norway talks. It would be wrong for the cabinet secretary to reveal everything, but it is quite right that a broad outline be given. We are seeking up to a 15 per cent increase in the total allowable catch for North Sea cod; we are seeking adequate provision for banking and borrowing of the North Sea haddock TAC; we want to limit the cut in the TAC for North Sea whiting; we support the Dutch request to limit the cut in the North Sea herring TAC; and we support lower levels of blue whiting transfers. Pre-negotiations, we are making good progress, but the process will continue to be tough.

Tavish Scott also mentioned kilowatt hours, as did a number of other members, including Karen Gillon. A days-at-sea regime that is based on a member state pot of kilowatt hours offers a number of potential advantages. In particular, it would give Scotland much greater control over its own industry. We are exploring with the Commission the scope for such a regime—which has some positive elements—for our white-fish fleet.

Robin Harper asked a large number of questions at minute seven and a half of a six-minute speech, so he will forgive me if I do not answer all of them. He was immensely critical of real-time closures, but he should not have been. The real-time closures scheme has been up and running for only a few weeks, but there is evidence that vessels are avoiding juvenile stocks—so the scheme is already making a significant impact. I had hoped that he might welcome that.

Richard Baker dealt comprehensively with the priorities of the wider industry. He knows—and I am happy to confirm—that food is of strategic importance to the Scottish economy. Seafood is a key component of Scotland's larder. In government, our party is strongly committed to working with the processing sector to ensure that improvements are made. That work is being kicked off by the proposed Scottish fishermen's council.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister recognise that the shellfish segment—which he has not yet mentioned—is by far the most valuable segment of the industry?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The cabinet secretary mentioned it in his opening speech. It is not correct to say that it is "by far the most valuable" component of the industry, but it is an extremely important one. We are keen to encourage the development of the shellfish sector—indeed, I met shellfish interests recently and will continue to do so.

Tavish Scott mentioned individual transferable quotas, which I am happy to say the Government, like the Scottish fishing industry, does not support. Instead, we want arrangements that support the particular needs of the Scottish fishing industry and Scottish coastal communities.

In a thoughtful and distinguished speech, Peter Peacock claimed that 16 out of 21 stocks are beyond sustainable levels, but that is not strictly true. For example, on monkfish, as he will know, we do not have enough evidence to say what levels are sustainable, let alone to work out whether existing stocks are beyond those levels. The Scottish Government will make resources available to identify what a sustainable level of fishing would be in every sector.

Sarah Boyack was absolutely right to talk about incentives. Incentivising is extremely important—we must go with the grain of the sector, rather than penalise it. We are doing that in clear and specific ways: with the observer scheme and by granting extra days at sea for the use of selective gear. We are doing all that we possibly can in the circumstances and will continue to do so. The Labour amendment is extremely important and I hope that Sarah Boyack is pleased that, as the cabinet secretary indicated, we intend to support it. We recognise the balance that has to be put in place and we will encourage it.

Sarah Boyack referred in passing to climate change. We might put that more prominently among the issues that we will consider. We must certainly think about the issues that climate change will present to us. The latest science indicates that, whatever the changes, we can still expect there to be a sustainable and viable fishery in Scotland, but we need to ensure that the decisions we make now do nothing to alter that. We must think not just about what we have at present but about what might be ahead of us.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the minister give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I would like to make some progress.

The biggest concern that we have heard from members today is discards.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I was going to ask about that.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am glad that I have reached the point Mr Rumbles wanted me to get to.

We have strong concern about discards. Indeed, the Labour amendment mentions it and we are happy to support the Labour amendment. It is a very, very complex issue. I was interested to read material from the Norwegian fishing minister the other day. He said that Norway's approach, which has been mentioned and which certainly has admirable qualities, would not read across absolutely into Scottish circumstances. What can we do? The real-time closures are important. A number of members mentioned gear and technical improvements. As Richard Lochhead is doing, we must put the issue centre stage in the negotiations. No one in the chamber or in the industry believes that the current situation is a happy one to be in. We must find a way forward, but a number of measures will be required. The cabinet secretary mentioned one of the key measures, which is to allow an increase in the total allowable catch while giving incentives to stop people targeting cod. That is a key part of the strategy.

We take the fishing industry in Scotland very seriously. All members take it seriously—as well they should. We have heard a range of statistics today, but it is useful to remind ourselves of them. Scottish vessels land two thirds of the total value of UK quota landings. They account for more than 70 per cent of regulated effort in the cod recovery zone. The Scottish fishing zone makes up 60 per cent of UK waters. Scottish over-10m vessels account for 60 per cent of the tonnage of the UK over-10m fleet. Communities have been mentioned often. Scotland has around 20 travel-to-work areas with a fishing dependency, compared with just three in England and one in Northern Ireland. That is 2 per cent of Scotland's population. The Scottish industry accounts for 1 per cent of Scottish gross domestic product, compared with 0.1 per cent for the UK as a whole. Fishing is 10 times more important in economic terms in Scotland.

There is a vast range of other statistics, but they all go to show how important fishing is to Scotland. The debate goes to show how important fishing is to the Parliament. However, there is still an incomplete issue for us. I make absolutely no excuse for returning to it because it is at the centre of our concerns. Des McNulty argues that that issue is irrelevant, but he misses the point of the debate. In an intervention, Liam McArthur asked a question of my friend, Dr Allan. He asked for one example—just one—of when a Scottish fishing minister had either not been consulted or had not been allowed to make a decision. I thought that Dr Allan dealt with the question well, but I will give one example: the sole-nephrops swap. Surely no Scottish minister agreed to that measure. If they did, they were not acting in Scotland's interests.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I will not. I am sorry. I am tight for time—I have half a minute and the Presiding Officer will hold me to it.

Karen Gillon asked what the difference would be if Richard Lochhead were sitting in the key chair. I will tell her the difference: all the difference in the world. It would be the difference between speaking up for Scotland and having Scotland spoken for. We can see that in fishing most of all. In the 33 years we have been in the European Union—from Heath, through Wilson, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown—Scotland's interests have not been at the forefront of fisheries negotiations. If members doubt that, they should read a wonderful book called "Stop the World: The Autobiography of Winnie Ewing", which tells us time and time again. That is why it is a wonderful book. I declare my interest in fishing and in literature, and I commend the book to the chamber.

I will finish by making a clear point. On Sunday, when Richard Lochhead goes to take part in the negotiations, he will go with the knowledge of what has taken place in the debate, and he will go with the good will of the chamber and the desire to do well for Scotland. He will do very well indeed, but he could do even better if he was there as a representative of an independent nation.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Good job I was here in plenty of time.

To ask the Scottish Executive how many patients benefit from the NHS minor ailments scheme. (S3O-1361)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The number of patients registered for the minor ailment service in Scotland was, as at 31 August this year, 541,385.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

All 541,385—as the minister stated—recipients of free prescriptions currently qualify for the minor ailments scheme, which means that people on low incomes, the elderly and people who are in poor health are not put off seeking the expert advice of community pharmacists by the cost of over-the-counter medicines. Not only that, but it frees up hard-pressed general practitioners to concentrate on more serious cases.

Will the minister guarantee that all recipients of free prescriptions will continue to benefit from the minor ailments scheme?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I assure the member that the Government remains committed to the minor ailments service. It is one of the four core services of the new pharmacy contract. Under the service, patients who are not liable for prescription charges can register with a community pharmacist and then have any common conditions or minor ailments treated by the community pharmacist on the national health service without the need to visit a GP. That not only improves the quality of service for the patient but, as the member rightly said, reduces the burden on GPs.

When the Government fulfils its commitment to abolish prescription charges, we will consider the implications that that has for the minor ailment service. However, I reiterate that the Government remains committed to the principle of that service because it is in the interests of both patients and the NHS.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Dave Thompson.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends to continue funding the four Scottish centres of excellence—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am sorry, Mr Thompson. You had your button pressed so I assumed that you wanted to ask a supplementary to the first question. I apologise. You do not need to press your button if you are asking the main question.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to increase NHS dental provision in Argyll and Bute. (S3O-1297)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

NHS Highland is currently exploring all options to establish a new dental practice in Oban. It is also looking to develop new dental facilities in Campbeltown, and on Rothesay and Islay.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The minister is obviously aware of the efforts to establish the much-needed new national health service dental practice in Oban. I hope that she will assure my constituents that the Government is keeping up the pressure on the matter. In addition, I wonder what advice the minister can offer to one of my constituents who has moved up from Greenock to Lochgilpead. Last week, she tried to sign up with an NHS dentist there and was informed that she could only be put on a waiting list that consists of 500 people, and that she would be better to stay with her existing dentist in Greenock, almost 100 miles away.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I will deal first with the situation in Oban, of which I am fully aware. The situation at present is that there is a salaried dental service in the Lorn and Islands district general hospital. As I am sure Jamie McGrigor is well aware, that service is under severe pressure. The local community health partnership intends to provide a new service in a new and bigger premises. Those premises will be compliant with the 2009 decontamination standards. A number of options have been identified and the CHP has appointed consultants, who are currently working on an outline business case. In the meantime, attempts are being made to recruit an additional salaried dentist to work in the hospital. I am very aware of the level of interest among people in Oban and the surrounding area. I believe that many people attended a recent public meeting.

I very much sympathise with the point that Jamie McGrigor made about the more general issue of access to NHS dentistry services. As a new Government, we inherited a situation of some difficulty in respect of access to NHS dentists. We are working to address that. A number of allowances are paid to dentists to encourage them to commit to the NHS, and we will continue to support that system. In addition, however, we have plans to open a third dental school in Aberdeen, which will contribute to a greater supply of NHS dentists in the future.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 4 has been withdrawn.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it intends to continue funding the four Scottish centres of excellence in music. (S3O-1331)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The concordat between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities proposes that the funding for the centres of excellence be rolled up into the local government settlement from 2008-09.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be aware that organisations such as Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, the UHI Millennium Institute and Fèisean nan Gàidheal are currently developing a fèis academy. The project will go a long way towards further developing local talent and encouraging more participation in the fèisean movement. Will the minister tell us what progress has been made towards the academy's establishment?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am aware of the proposal to establish a fèis academy. Early this year, Fèisean nan Gàidheal commenced discussions with the RSAMD, the UHI Millennium Institute and Sabhal Mòr Ostaig to explore jointly the options for establishing and operating a new body. Representatives from those four institutions have formed a working party, which will report its recommendations for the establishment and funding of the new body later this year. As indicated in answers to previous questions, the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture is willing to meet Arthur Cormack and other representatives of the working group and looks forward to receiving their proposals.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

As the minister will be aware, Dave Thompson and I had the great pleasure of attending in Strathpeffer two weeks ago the annual showcase of the four music schools. We were so moved by the performance—it was truly outstanding—that, in a rare moment of interparty co-operation, we jointly lodged a motion congratulating the young people involved.

I noted what the minister said about the rolling up of the funding for the centres of excellence into the grant settlement for local authorities. I understand the Government's policy position on that, but does she acknowledge that there is a danger that that funding may now not end up in those centres of excellence? As with other portfolios, will she ensure that that money is ring fenced within the local government settlement for the purpose of ensuring that the centres survive and prosper in the future?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I cannot without discussions with COSLA ensure that that money will be ring fenced—that is not the idea of the concordat—but I cannot possibly imagine that the centres of excellence would be under threat.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am glad to hear that the level of funding for our centres of excellence in music is being maintained. However, will the minister remind us why funding under the classification "Other Arts" in the provisional culture budget—which, of course, includes festivals, Bòrd na Gàidhlig and Gaelic broadcasting—is to be £7 million next year but will drop to £2.3 million the following year?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

As Ted Brocklebank's question falls within the Minister for Europe, External Affairs and Culture's portfolio, I will ensure that he gets an answer from her.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I strongly endorse the point that Peter Peacock made and remind the Minister for Schools and Skills of the excellent youth music initiative, which ensures that all primary school pupils have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument. Last year's budget contained a £10 million line for the initiative. Notwithstanding that missing line—one of many that are missing from last week's budget—will the minister tell us how much money will be devoted to the initiative in the forthcoming financial year?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

As the new concordat with local government outlines, specific budget lines have, in many cases, been taken away. Those matters will be taken forward in discussions with COSLA.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met the board of NHS Ayrshire and Arran. (S3O-1366)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I have monthly meetings with national health service board chairs at which a range of issues are discussed. I also attended the most recent meeting of NHS chief executives yesterday. The chief executive of NHS Ayrshire and Arran was present at that meeting. I also met the chair of NHS Ayrshire and Arran on 5 November and I will meet representatives of the board when I chair its annual review on 10 December.

Irene Oldfather (Labour, Cunninghame South)

In that case, I assume that the minister is aware that, at a meeting on 5 October this year, NHS Ayrshire and Arran withdrew funding from the Compass centre in Irvine, which is a Scottish Association for Mental Health project that provides training and support to 70 service users with mental health problems. Will she say how that rests with according national priority status to mental health? Will she take whatever action is necessary to demonstrate the commitment that she made to people who suffer from mental illness to ensure that the Compass centre, which has been supported for the past 16 years, does not now close its doors to that vulnerable group?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I reassure Irene Oldfather and all other members that mental health is a priority for the Government. I hope that we have cross-party support in that. As I am sure she is aware and understands, provision of local community services is a matter for local NHS boards. That said, I am, given the concerns that she has raised with me, perfectly happy to discuss the matter further with NHS Ayrshire and Arran.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Red Cross provides an excellent support service to patients in Ayrshire and Arran and that the costs of delivering that service to the public would be considerable if it was provided by the health board? North Ayrshire Council is considering withdrawing its support to the Red Cross due to a lack of equivalent funding from Ayrshire and Arran NHS Board. Will she attempt to persuade the health board that to provide modest support would not only save it the cost of providing the services but would ensure continued delivery of excellent Red Cross care to the people of Ayrshire and Arran?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Last week at question time, I indicated the Government's support for the voluntary sector. We discussed the Red Cross in particular. I repeat the comment that I made to Irene Oldfather: decisions on provision of local community services are matters for NHS boards. However, I expect all NHS boards to work constructively with the voluntary sector, which makes a fantastic contribution to the health service and wider public services in Scotland.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The minister will be aware of the particularly poor state of mental health provision in the NHS Ayrshire and Arran area. Does she accept that maintaining the Compass centre in Irvine into the future is vital, and will she undertake to have further discussions with NHS Ayrshire and Arran on the subject prior to the review on 10 December?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I am aware of how important those services are, Irvine being my home town. I also confirm that at least one local councillor will actively campaign on the Compass centre's behalf—I know that because she is my mother.

Those matters are important. They are matters for NHS Ayrshire and Arran but, as I said to Irene Oldfather, I am always happy to discuss such matters with NHS boards if members raise concerns with me.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will make a decision about the future of sportscotland and how it intends to replicate the work done by sportscotland on behalf of many Scottish sporting bodies. (S3O-1314)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

It is hoped that we will be able to announce the decision on the future of sportscotland before the end of this year. The underlying principle of the review of sportscotland is to ensure that, whatever structures are put in place, the best interests of sport will be paramount.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

As well as providing a single voice to represent sporting interests, sportscotland fulfils a number of functions on behalf of sporting bodies and local authorities, including direct administrative support in payroll and information technology as well as expertise in everything from marketing to long-term facility planning and implementation of the active schools programme. How will the minister ensure that co-ordination and integration across all the functions that sportscotland performs is as cost effective and efficient in the future as it currently is, if the Government redistributes sportscotland's functions across other bodies, including local authorities, and keeps others within the Scottish Government?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

We would not make a proposal that was less cost effective than the current arrangements—to do so would make no sense at all. Our clear intention is to ensure that the governing bodies' support in the future is as good as, if not better than, it currently is. We are consulting many governing bodies throughout Scotland—the Scottish Cyclists Union, the Scottish Gymnastics Association, the Scottish Amateur Swimming Association, badmintonscotland, Judo Scotland and Scottish Athletics Limited are a few—as part of the review. All those bodies' views will be fed into the review process and we will ensure that we take proper cognisance of their feelings and views on their sports' requirements; after all, the effects of any decision that we take on sportscotland's future will vary from one governing body to another.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Setting aside the question of the structure that might be put in place to replicate sportscotland's work, I note that Julia Bracewell, the chair of the organisation, expressed serious concern at this week's meeting of the Health and Sport Committee about the impact of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in London's proposed £13 million cut in sports lottery funding to Scotland at both grass-roots and elite levels. Will the minister ensure that those concerns are brought fully to the department's attention? Moreover, has he taken note of the fact that, to date, DCMS has not confirmed whether the cut has been capped at £13 million or could be more? Will he make representations to ensure that if the department goes ahead with the cut it will be capped at that amount?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I have made clear my deep concern about the intended loss of £13.1 million of lottery funding to Scottish sport over the next three or four years. I find it unacceptable that the DCMS is intending to take away that money, particularly in the light of the decision that was made on 9 November to award Glasgow the 2014 Commonwealth games. Scotland requires all its current sport funding—and more.

Michael Matheson is correct to point out that the DCMS has not said whether the figure has been absolutely capped or, indeed, whether that is the limit of its ambitions in taking lottery money away from good causes and grass-roots sport in Scotland. I will certainly ensure that he is kept fully informed of the representations that are made to DCMS and the Westminster Government to ensure that money for the good interests of grass-roots sport is retained in Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The minister will be aware that, on 1 November, the First Minister confirmed that

"a full consultation is being carried out"—[Official Report, 1 November 2007; c 2984.]

on sportscotland's future. Some of us have been sceptical about that, as there has been no consultation document setting out the available options and their consequences, particularly for the successful bid for the Commonwealth games.

As far as the consultation is concerned, while outlining in detail at yesterday's meeting of the Local Government and Communities Committee sportscotland's critical role in protecting open space in the newly published Scottish planning policy 11, planning officials confirmed that they had not been consulted on the organisation's future. Will the minister explain how he can square the reality that no consultation is taking place with the First Minister's commitment? Does he accept that the issue is very serious and will he agree to end this pantomime and have a proper consultation to ensure that sport in this country is properly served as we develop our commitments with regard to the Commonwealth games?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

We take this matter very seriously, which is why a full consultation is under way.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

There is no full consultation.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

For the member's benefit, we are consulting sportscotland, the Scottish Institute of Sport, Scottish Cycling, Scottish Gymnastics, Scottish Swimming, badmintonscotland, Judo Scotland, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the voice of chief officers of cultural, community and leisure services in Scotland, Scottish Athletics, the Scottish Sports Association, the Scottish Institute of Sport Foundation, the Scottish Golf Union, the Scottish Rugby Union, the Scottish Football Association, Scottish Universities Sport, the Welsh Assembly Government and the Scottish Parliament's Health and Sport Committee. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Given the number of bodies I have just listed that are involved in the process, there is quite clearly a full consultation under way.

With regard to SPP 11, the fact is that, at the moment, sportscotland is the body that is involved in the relationship that is set out in the document. Given that any future body would also be involved in such planning issues, it is nonsense to say that only sportscotland can carry out that role. To be frank, it is quite usual for the member to come up with such nonsensical arguments with regard to this matter. A full consultation is under way; all the bodies that I mentioned are involved in it and all their views will be fed back into the process.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The minister said that there was a full consultation process under way on sportscotland's future. If so, will he, as a courtesy to Parliament, place in the Scottish Parliament information centre the paper on which he is consulting to allow members to contribute to it?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

As the member is aware, that is not a point of order for me to rule on. I am afraid that we now do not have time for question 8.

First Minister's Question Time

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-284)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland, and tonight I will be speaking to representatives of the oil and gas industry in Aberdeen.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Two weeks ago, the First Minister told the chamber that his Government would

"deliver on the promises that it made to the people of Scotland."—[Official Report, 8 November 2007; c 3213.]

In May, the Scottish National Party told Scotland's students that it would dump their debts. In a podcast that is still on the party's website, the First Minister declares:

"It's time to dump the debt."

Last week, his Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth confirmed that it is not time to dump the debt but time to dump the promise. Is that what the First Minister calls keeping his promises?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Wendy Alexander well knows, despite the extremely tight budget settlement imposed by her colleagues at Westminster, the Scottish National Party Government has still managed to restore the principle of free education in Scotland, which will contribute enormously to reducing the burden of student debt imposed by the Labour Government at Westminster and by the previous Executive. I call that keeping SNP promises.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The SNP has let down the 350,000 people who still have student loans. They trusted his word, but the Government has broken its promise to dump student debt and is not doing it. We all know—we have just seen an example of it—that, when he is in a tight corner, the First Minister attacks rather than answering. He also sometimes resorts to selective third-party quotes.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

On higher education, however, the First Minister's Government is on its own. The Government is on one side, and the university principals, the students and the independent experts are on the other. Five of the world's top 200 universities are here in Scotland. The SNP Government is now at serious risk of compromising their competitiveness, not only with the rest of the United Kingdom but with the rest of the world. Will the First Minister agree both to revisit next year's settlement and to have an urgent review of the sector's future?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Wendy Alexander should know, university and higher education funding is increasing in real terms throughout the spending review announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth. It is increasing not just in real terms but as a share of public spending in Scotland—that is, it will be higher than it was under the Labour-Liberal Executive.

I am delighted to tell Wendy Alexander that, at a highly constructive meeting between the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning and Universities Scotland this very morning, there was agreement on the budget settlement and on how the Government and the sector could work together for the future of that sector as we move into the next decade and beyond. That is the sort of constructive thinking that takes place under the Scottish National Party, as compared with the dismal track record of Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I suspect that, as is all too common, we will discover in the press briefing afterwards whether that is a review of the settlement or not.

I turn, beyond Scottish students, to the other young people who were let down by the Government this week. This week, 150,000 new modern apprenticeships were announced in the rest of the UK. Here in Scotland, there has been not one—no extra quality apprenticeships, merely training places. There was also another blow for young people in the budget—a 20 per cent cut in education maintenance allowances. That is cash that goes to youngsters in Scotland's most hard-pressed families to encourage them to stay on at school. With no new modern apprenticeships and with cuts for ambitious pupils, does the First Minister call that keeping his promises to the pupils and young people of Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I point out to Wendy Alexander that the figure for modern apprenticeships and places on training schemes in Scotland will move over the next three years towards 50,000. I call that keeping our promises. On where Scotland's students have been left in relation to debt, let us recall and reflect on where that debt came from—[ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have a copy of the decision in 2004 in the Westminster Parliament on top-up fees. There was a Labour majority of five, bolstered by the Scottish Labour contingent, which included Lord George Foulkes. Of course, a week before that decision, the Scottish Parliament was offered the opportunity to ask the Westminster Parliament not to take the cap off top-up fees, but the motion was voted down by the Labour-Liberal Executive—and the first name in the vote was Wendy Alexander.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

As I said, that was an attack, not an answer.

Under Labour, we went from fewer than 10,000 modern apprenticeships. Under us, there would have been 50,000. However, the First Minister gives us weasel words about training places. [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Let me end on a serious matter. In a week in which Scotland's chief medical officer called for more help for the nation's most vulnerable and youngest children, we discovered that the Scottish National Party will shelve Labour's plans to provide a nursery place for Scotland's 10,000 most vulnerable two-year-olds. Scotland's youngest and most vulnerable children deserve better. Will the First Minister listen to the chief medical officer and do the right thing by Scotland's most vulnerable two-year-olds?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Let us start with a point on which we agree. Poverty and child poverty in Scotland are a serious problem. If I were Wendy Alexander, after 10 years of Labour Government, I would be hanging my head in shame.

Luckily for young people in Scotland, in particular in our most deprived areas, there is a vast expansion in nursery provision under the terms of the SNP budget. If Wendy Alexander ever gets down to looking at the budget lines that prove that, perhaps she will find it in her heart to support the SNP budget on behalf of the young people of Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-285)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am in correspondence with the secretary of state and I hope to take forward a meeting at which we will discuss and, I hope, come to an agreement on, subject to the views of the Parliament, the implementation of all the recommendations of the Gould report.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

In today's Scotsman and on the BBC, Dr Andrew Cubie has called for a root-and-branch review of our universities. He said that there should be

"a properly commissioned, evidence-based and widely drawn review, independent of government."

He is right. That is what the Scottish Conservatives want.

By stark contrast, all that Fiona Hyslop has offered is a "future thinking" exercise—not even a conversation. Although such an exercise might find a short-term answer to an immediate budget problem, it cannot deliver the long-term solutions that are needed. We need a fully independent review, which has the freedom and the courage to ask tough questions and find long-term solutions; we do not need an internal discussion in the pocket of Government.

Will the First Minister say why he will not set up a properly commissioned, evidence-based, widely drawn review independent of Government? What is he scared of?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I repeat to Annabel Goldie the point that I made to Wendy Alexander. Fiona Hyslop had a constructive meeting today with Universities Scotland on the budget settlement for universities and higher education, and on how the Government and the sector can work together for the future of the sector as we move into the next decade and beyond. That discussion took place between the university principals and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. Such meaningful and constructive dialogue seems a lot better than kicking the issue into the long grass, which seems to be what the Scottish Conservatives want to do.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am accustomed to broadsides from the First Minister, but that was a pretty dismissive description of Dr Andrew Cubie's proposal.

The First Minister talks about his review in relation to the budget settlement. Clearly, what the First Minister cannot see is the absence of a long-term strategy for higher education in Scotland. There is no strategy—there is a void, a vacuum. His review—the one that he has just referred to—is not a properly commissioned, evidence-based and widely drawn review that is independent of Government, so let us not pretend that it is.

I cannot blame Universities Scotland for grasping at any straw in the hope of resolving a short-term budget impasse but, once upon a time—and this does read like a fairy story—the Scottish National Party agreed that there should be an independent review. It said:

"We will reconvene the Cubie Committee with a remit to review financial support for students at present, as well as the overall context of further and higher education funding. The committee will not be restricted in its remit".

That was a commitment that the SNP gave in its 2003 manifesto—yet another broken promise.

Why was the SNP so strong, resolute and determined in 2003 and yet is so weak, feeble and afraid in 2007?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I remind Annabel Goldie that it was the 2007 election that we won—we did not win the 2003 election. Incidentally, the Scottish Conservatives lost both comprehensively.

The universities and colleges in Scotland are competitive. They are looking forward to a real-terms increase in their funding. Not only is their funding increasing in real terms, it is going up as a percentage of public sector spending over the course of this spending review period.

Annabel Goldie asks about strategy. I quote to her the words of Howard McKenzie, the acting chief executive of the Association of Scotland's Colleges—the colleges, too, have a vital role to play in higher education. In response to the Government's budget, he said:

"The Government's economic strategy puts learning, skills and well-being as its top strategic priority, and this additional funding will help Scotland's Colleges continue to play a pivotal role in its delivery."

If that is the enthusiastic response of Scotland's colleges, why is it not reflected by Annabel Goldie?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-286)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Now that ministers have made their choices about their spending priorities, will the First Minister allow the Council of Economic Advisers to tell the Parliament whether they are the right choices to grow the Scottish economy?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As Sir George Mathewson has indicated, the job of the Council of Economic Advisers is to advise. It is the job of the Parliament to scrutinise the budget process and I hope that that is what it will do.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

If Alex Salmond is so confident of his case, why does he not get his economic advisers more involved? Perhaps the answer is that he is already choosing to ignore what they say. After all, the advisers wanted investment in high-level skills to go up, but ministers are taking funding down. The economic strategy called universities our "world-class assets", but Alex Salmond's budget is cutting their funding next year. The advisers said that all spending should address the pursuit of faster economic growth, but now the First Minister could not care less about that. The real-terms cuts in university funding next year are bad for students, bad for universities and bad for the long-term future of Scotland's economy. University principals are telling him that today and his economic advisers would tell him exactly the same thing. Why is he choosing not to listen? By short-changing Scotland's universities, the First Minister has opened Pandora's box and has put the issue of top-up fees back on his table.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We have ruled out not only top-up fees but the back-end fees that were introduced by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party.

I hope that, at some point, in the interests of clarity, Nicol Stephen will write to me to acknowledge that university and higher education funding is going up in real terms and is also going up, through the spending review period, as a share of the Scottish budget.

I can understand why university principals would argue for more money but, if political parties do it, they have an obligation to say where the money is going to come from. On television on Sunday, Nicol Stephen indicated how he would meet all the demands of Scotland's universities as opposed to half of them—he said that we should mutualise Scottish Water. Even if we ignore the complications with the process of mutualisation and the arguments against it, the first time that any money could possibly be saved from such a process is 2011. Is that seriously the Liberal Democrats' proposition for funding Scottish universities? [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That is not so much water as hot air.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I confirm to members that I will take points of order at the end of First Minister's question time—my intention is to get in as many back benchers as possible.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

This Sunday, 25 November, Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board will implement a new policy of parking charges at Stobhill hospital. That is despite the fact that the Parliament's Public Petitions Committee has asked the board to delay the decision until the committee completes its consideration of two public petitions. Will the First Minister write to the health board to ask it to delay its plans until the committee has completed its deliberations?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will examine that issue, and I will write to Paul Martin when I can weigh up the response of the health board to the important and constructive point that he has made.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am sure that the First Minister would like to congratulate Strathclyde Police and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency on the drugs bust that took place in Greenock last weekend, which removed £500,000-worth of cocaine from our streets. Will he ensure that the Scottish police service and the SCDEA receive every support and the necessary resources in the fight against the scourge of drugs that blights Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As I am sure all members want to do, I congratulate Strathclyde Police on that significant success. [ Applause. ] I am sure that all members will also want to congratulate the Crown Office, the officials and the police, who are acting so well on the proceeds of crime, to ensure that criminals and drug barons pay the price not just in terms of criminal penalties but in recompense to society.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

The First Minister will have no doubt read the report that was issued this week by the chief medical officer, which highlights the profound challenge of health inequalities. I am sure that he will have paid particular attention to the credit that is given to the previous Executive on the progress made on child poverty.

The report states that

"Glasgow has the highest homicide rate in Europe"

and that

"treating those affected by violence costs an estimated 3-6% of the NHS budget",

which is approximately £400 million. That illustrates not only the physical and psychological devastation for the individuals concerned but the cost to those communities that experience disproportionately high levels of knife crime and gang violence, which I know well from my own constituency. Does the First Minister agree that those communities should receive additional health funding in recognition of the additional pressures on those services?

Will the First Minister explain why he has failed to implement the SNP manifesto commitment to ring fence funding for mental health services and has gone in the opposite direction by cutting that funding? Those services are vital to tackling health inequality.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That is part of the local government settlement, which I think it is widely acknowledged has increased substantially. As for the first part of the member's question, the precise formulation of revisions and funding is still being considered, but all members will agree with her points about tackling poverty, deprivation and crime levels in our areas that have the worst blights of poverty and deprivation. I undertake to write to her to encapsulate the range of measure that the Government is taking to deal with exactly those problems. I would never say that they are totally a legacy of 10 years of Labour Government, but I hope that when the Scottish National Party has been in government for 10 years—I confidently expect us to have that as a minimum target—we will have made more substantial progress than has been made over the past 10 years.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's timetable is for implementing the replacement of council tax by a local income tax. (S3F-290) [ Interruption. ] If Labour members listen, they will learn.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We will issue a consultation paper on our proposals before Christmas. I hope that members in all parts of the chamber will respond to the paper and I look forward to a full and vigorous debate.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I ask the First Minister whether the proposed local income tax will give Scotland the lowest effective rate of tax in the United Kingdom and what impact that will have on retaining and attracting new talent and new business to Scotland.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The point that Alex Neil makes is an important one, but I am sure that he will be the first to acknowledge that we are not just waiting for the introduction of the local income tax. The measures that have been put in place with the historic concordat with local government, providing the funds for a council tax freeze in Scotland over the next three years, will be widely welcomed not just by those who suffer from the onerous burden of that unfair tax but throughout Scottish society. I do not think that that wide welcome includes the Labour Party, which, if I understand it correctly, wants to put the council tax back up again.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The consultation on legislation to replace the discredited and unfair council tax is to be welcomed. However, does the First Minister agree that an income tax that is set centrally by him is simply not a local income tax? Will he commit today to consider introducing a real local income tax that gives democratically elected councils control over the money that they raise, rather than a centrally imposed tax that would undermine local accountability?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I look forward to the debate and the submissions, and those issues will certainly be raised in the consultation document. However, if the member's argument is that we must ensure local accountability, surely his party should welcome the historic freedoms in the historic concordat between local and central Government, which do exactly that.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The First Minister's economic strategy states that the Government will pursue

"The creation of the conditions for talented people to live, work and remain in Scotland."

Does he think that having the highest personal income tax rate in the United Kingdom, under his local income tax proposals, is the best way to create those conditions?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I think that abolishing the council tax would certainly create those conditions.

I have been dying for Andy Kerr to ask me a question, because I heard a disturbing rumour that he had been lobbying council leaders across Scotland not to sign the historic concordat. I am sure that he will take the opportunity to put it on the record if that is not true, but I heard that he was desperately lobbying them, saying, "Don't sign this contract for zero council tax rises." We know that it is good for Scotland, but all that Andy Kerr could think of was that it might be bad for the Labour Party.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will encourage research and development in universities. (S3F-298)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are encouraging university research by delivering record levels of investment in higher education over the spending review period. We are working closely with the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, the enterprise networks and our universities to capitalise on our excellent research and make the best use of that investment.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

How can it be consistent with the economic strategy's aim of greater knowledge transfer between academic research and industry that there will be—as the First Minister must know—a real-terms cut in funding for universities next year? That cut was confirmed by Universities Scotland, and the Parliament should be clear about it even if the First Minister is not being so. With a view to the forthcoming research assessment exercise, what were the principals offered at today's meeting if they have been offered neither a review of funding nor a better funding settlement in the current spending review?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am sure that Richard Baker will want to acknowledge not just that investment goes up in real terms over the spending review period but that it also goes up as a share of public spending—that means that it will be higher than it was under the previous Administration. Members and other people involved in this debate should at some point remember the additional £100 million that has been provided this year to refurbish the college and university sector across Scotland. Strangely, I did not hear a welcome from Richard Baker for that crucial announcement last month.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I am sure that the First Minister did not mean to lie to the chamber in an earlier answer. However, he stated—and I quote—that funding for universities was increasing in real terms in each year of the spending review period. What is—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Mr Purvis, I am sorry to interrupt, but you have accused the First Minister of lying. I think that you might want to reflect on that.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I said that I was certain that the First Minister did not intend to lie to the chamber.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I still find that unacceptable terminology. I ask you to rephrase.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I therefore ask, Presiding Officer, for clarification on what the First Minister has stated, so that it is clear that he did not—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. Mr Purvis, you are entitled to ask the First Minister for clarification—that would be in order.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I ask the First Minister for clarification: for next year, what is the real-terms funding for universities? Universities Scotland has said that there is a £1.9 million cut in real terms. What is the figure for next year?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I point out to the member that I said that real-terms funding was increasing over the spending review period—as indeed it is. Not only is funding increasing over the spending review period, it is increasing as a share of public spending in Scotland. That, to me, means giving higher education colleges and universities a substantial measure of priority. The member should learn the elementary courtesies of parliamentary debate.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Perhaps I could give the First Minister some friendly advice. Does he accept that he would have more credibility on the issue if he was big enough to stand up and admit to the Parliament that universities are facing a real-terms cut in funding in the coming financial year?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The spending review goes over three years, not one year, and there is a substantial real-terms increase. If the member wants to gain the respect of the Parliament, he should say where he would find the additional resources that he says he wants to put into universities and higher education institutions in addition to the £100 million of extra investment this year and the increasing share of public spending in Scotland. That is what should be welcomed across the chamber.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the First Minister how many additional physiotherapists will be employed in the national health service. (S3F-295)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

NHS board workforce plans indicate a continuing demand for physiotherapists. Over the next three years, it is projected that demand by NHS Scotland will increase by almost 7 per cent, from 2,138 to 2,286, an increase of 148 on a full-time basis.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

With 70 per cent of this year's physiotherapy graduates still unemployed five months after graduation, and one third of 2006 graduates still unemployed, what does the Scottish National Party's manifesto commitment to

"increase the numbers of NHS physiotherapists"

mean for those highly trained, unemployed professionals and the 28,000 patients who are on waiting lists for physiotherapy treatment?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have indicated to Mary Scanlon the expected increase in physiotherapy uptake across Scotland over the next three years.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I point out to Labour members that we inherited the situation that Mary Scanlon describes from the Labour and Liberal parties. I would have thought that Mary Scanlon would welcome the projected increase of 148 on a full-time basis, as well as the fact that a planning group in the health service is examining exactly those problems to bring about even better solutions.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The First Minister will be aware of the recent questionable motivation of Peter Hain, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in his drive to reduce the number of Scots on incapacity benefit. Does the First Minister agree that that will put additional strain on our allied health professionals, such as physiotherapists, and that, should the proposal proceed, Westminster should return to Scotland any share of benefit savings that flow as a consequence—which the Liberal and Labour parties singularly failed to do when we introduced free personal care, and Scotland lost £40 million?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Christine Grahame raises a substantial point, which we should bring to the attention of Peter Hain. The Labour members should consider the implications for Scotland and the Scottish people of the actions of their Westminster colleagues.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We have had a number of interruptions, so I will allow Malcolm Chisholm to ask a final supplementary.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

How can NHS boards throughout Scotland employ more physiotherapists or more of any other staff group next year when the real-terms increase to NHS boards is 0.5 per cent—the lowest increase that I, or I suspect the First Minister, can remember? Notwithstanding the excellent progress that NHS boards have made over the past few years in slashing waiting times and reducing the number of deaths from the great killer diseases, how does the First Minister expect boards to address the challenges of an increasing elderly population and new drug developments when the increase that is available to them is less than health service inflation, which runs at least 1 per cent ahead of general inflation?