Scottish Parliament, 27 November 2008

388 contributions from 81 members. The official report.

Official Report 27 November 2008

A Framework for Science

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a statement by Fiona Hyslop on a framework for science in Scotland. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Change happens progressively over time, but a clear vision and a well-understood sense of direction are crucial.

Just over a year ago, the Government set out our vision for Scotland. We published our economic strategy, defined our economic purpose and said that there would be a new framework for science, which would outline how Scotland's success as a nation will be underpinned through developing knowledge exchange, increasing overseas investment in research and development in Scotland and developing the science base. The clear focus of those science goals emerged from an extensive consultation in 2006.

The new framework, "Science for Scotland", also reflects more recent dialogue with key stakeholders, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Universities Scotland, the Association of Scotland's Colleges, the Scottish science advisory council, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and many others. I attended a meeting to hear the views of 12 key sector advisory boards and I commend everyone who contributed to the development of the framework.

Of course, science and policy development do not exist in a vacuum. We have continued to launch initiatives that will have a positive impact on science and economic growth. Those initiatives include the £10 million Scottish institute for cell signalling in Dundee, the £10 million saltire prize, the new science baccalaureate and the report of the joint future thinking task force on universities, "New Horizons: responding to the challenges of the 21st century", which aligned the university science base with the Government's economic purpose of delivering sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all.

This morning, copies of the new framework and associated background papers have been placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre and published on the Scottish Government's website. The new framework is deliberately more focused and accessible than was the 2001 science strategy that it replaces. It is, however, supported by background papers, which provide greater detail.

Much has changed since 2001. Indeed, much has changed in the past few months. Across the world and here in Scotland, individuals and institutions and homes and high streets are feeling the impact of the economic downturn. As we know, other Governments are taking steps to minimise the impact of the downturn and recover quickly. Ambitious nations know that science, engineering and technology have shaped the modern world, so they are continuing to invest in building their scientific capacity, promoting that capacity's economic and commercial relevance and advancing their competitive advantage in global markets. Governments around the world want to be better able to shape and respond to future science-based market opportunities. They want to develop and attract scientific talent, investment and high-value jobs, and they want to attract, encourage and grow innovative businesses that use science and research to prosper.

Scotland is well placed to use science to underpin sustainable economic growth. This week, the unveiling in George Street of a statue that honours James Clerk Maxwell provided a timely reminder that Scotland has a proud heritage of scientific excellence. To this day, our science base stands comparison with the world's best. Many of our key economic sectors are science based, and later today I will visit Optos, a medical devices company in Fife, which is a great example of a high-tech, Scotland-headquartered business that uses science to compete internationally.

"Science for Scotland" is focused on fostering science as a comparative advantage. It describes key ways in which Government, in partnership, will sustain, enhance and more effectively exploit Scottish science to support the economic purpose, enhance our international reputation for science and support individuals, organisations and businesses. It sets out how we will develop four key areas: individuals; scientific research and economic and business demand; international standing and inward investment; and connections in Scotland and in Government.

I will not list each element of the framework. Three elements are key, the first of which is science education and careers. Scotland's people are our greatest asset. A key challenge is to encourage more Scots to study and build careers in science and engineering, so that we can develop the technicians, world-class researchers and science entrepreneurs who are needed by businesses and the economy now and will be needed in the future. We will therefore launch a new marketing campaign—do something creative, do science—to promote a more positive and realistic understanding of the diversity of science-based careers, particularly among young people who are leaving school.

Skills Development Scotland will develop a new national science careers programme: the path is science, engineering and technology—the path is SET—which will support improved and informed choice and help school pupils and college students and their parents and teachers. Both programmes will start in 2009.

We will make science in schools and colleges more challenging, relevant, interesting and exciting, through the on-going development and implementation of curriculum for excellence and the science baccalaureate. Indeed, only yesterday I set out more detail on how the baccalaureate will operate. The baccalaureate will encourage more of our young people to take science courses in the later stages of secondary school, raise the status of secondary 6 and assist young people in making the transition from school to higher and further education and employment. The interdisciplinary project, which is a key feature of the baccalaureate, should encourage students to draw on many areas of learning, recognise the interdependence of subjects and make connections between the study of science and the world of work.

The second key area is research. Scotland's scientific research base is ranked first in the world in terms of the rate of research citations relative to gross domestic product. A major challenge is to maintain that position. Our investment in research infrastructure sustains and enhances the excellence of Scotland's science research base, which attracts significant project funding from the United Kingdom research councils, charities and business, provides international profile and attracts a significant proportion of inward investment. Scotland provides a major element of the UK's research capacity. Indeed, we punch above our weight. I have discussed science with UK ministers twice in the past few months and I will continue to support and enhance productive links at every level with research councils and the European Union.

A clear consensus emerged from the consultation. On-going support for Scottish investment in infrastructure to secure UK project funding is the best way to improve research outcomes and enhance our international profile. Therefore, we will continue to support science infrastructure, as is confirmed in "New Horizons". Such support underpins existing and emerging world-class research, which in turn supports our science capacity, sustains and enhances our international standing and helps to improve Scottish business competitiveness and prospects for inward investment.

The third challenge is knowledge exchange. Our economic goals have not been and will not be realised solely by continued investment in our academic science base. Scotland's expenditure on R and D in higher education compares favourably with spending in most competitor economies. However, our business expenditure on R and D is less than half the UK rate, which in turn is well below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. That is crucial, because OECD studies confirm that business R and D is the optimum driver of economic growth.

Perhaps one of the most important issues for Scotland is how we increase business R and D. Also, how do we improve how scientific expertise in colleges, universities and research institutes supports businesses, key sectors and the economy? Improved university commercialisation is extremely important but is not the complete answer. We need to generate demand from industry for science. That is a well-established challenge in Scotland and internationally, for which there is no quick fix. Culture change in academia and in business will be involved.

To promote such an approach, "Science for Scotland" confirms plans for a progressive shift in emphasis and resource allocation. Currently, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council allocates only a tenth of its research resource to knowledge exchange. In future, we will take a new and distinctive approach. We will prioritise research excellence and strategic knowledge exchange as key priorities, given their different impacts on sustainable economic growth.

We will increase investment in scientific knowledge exchange faster over time, to support industry-led projects that help key sectors to use science to prosper. That commitment to increase the proportion of funding for targeted knowledge exchange provides a signal of intent and will influence culture change. Support will be directed to key businesses and sectors, allowing them, rather than Government, to articulate and address their needs by taking forward strategic projects, with support from all Government agencies and with sustainable economic growth as an outcome. The approach will foster longer-term growth in business demand for knowledge exchange and business R and D. It will also adjust the balance of current incentives in academia, promoting growth in participation in knowledge exchange.

Knowledge exchange works best when the partners work together closely and establish a lasting relationship that is based on trust, respect and an understanding of how their different talents produce mutual benefits. There are already several exciting examples of industry-led collaborative projects in Scotland, which are building R and D capacity. For example, the funding council recently invested in 30 PhD placements in small businesses in the chemical industry. We need more of that sort of industry-led initiative.

We want the business community to bring forward ideas. The funding council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise will respond positively to jointly facilitate project development, particularly in key sectors. Government and all its agencies will work with businesses and with colleges and universities to promote faster economic growth. Together we can increase business R and D, growing companies of scale and supporting the economic purpose of increased sustainable growth.

At the start of the statement, I said that vision is crucial. Our vision is of a nation of world-class scientific achievement, a magnet for talent and investment, and a powerhouse of technology innovation and enterprise, increasing sustainable economic growth. "Science for Scotland" will begin to make that real.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues raised in her statement. We have exactly 20 minutes available for those questions, after which we must move to the next item of business.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I welcome the statement and the science strategy, which has been a long time in coming. Much of it takes forward the important work that Labour and the Liberal Democrats did when we were in office. We all recognise that science—in schools, universities or business—is core to our lives, health and wellbeing.

At a time of economic downturn, why is the strategy not one for science and innovation? Will there be a separate innovation strategy? Has the science strategy been costed? Will it mean extra funding for science or business R and D, or is it just a reshuffling of existing funding?

The cabinet secretary made a big play of her manifesto commitment to the Scottish baccalaureate. At a time of swingeing cuts to secondary school staffing and when major curriculum change is under way, why is the curriculum to be made more crowded by introducing that award? Will the cabinet secretary publish the evidence that parents, teachers and universities are demanding the change?

Finally, given the slashing of budgets for continuing professional development in schools, how long will it take on the present funding for every science teacher in Scotland to access the excellent Scottish Schools Equipment Research Centre courses?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Rhona Brankin has a positive way of promoting her case.

The science strategy sits alongside the innovation strategy. As I said in my statement, the science strategy draws on work by the previous Administration, particularly the consultation in 2006. I point out that the 2001 science strategy that was produced by the previous Administration was not accompanied by any increased resources for science.

In the rebalancing that the Scottish funding council will take forward in developing the knowledge exchange agenda, growing business demand for science will be a key focus. Recognising and stimulating that demand is a key task for us all and our enterprise agencies in particular.

There has been an increase in advanced highers since last year, despite the scaremongering of some of Rhona Brankin's colleagues, particularly Wendy Alexander. It is recognised that, even in Renfrewshire, there is the same access to advanced highers as there was last year. The baccalaureate is based on existing highers and advanced highers, so it will not crowd the curriculum. It will stretch our ablest pupils in S6, some of whom perhaps coast through their sixth year, and it will include an interpretative and integrated project.

We have a wealth of supportive quotations from organisations, universities and businesses to welcome the baccalaureate. Indeed, universities and colleges are offering to provide support for the integrated projects. For schools that cannot provide the integrated project, the fact that they can draw on employers' support and that the work can take place in universities and colleges will provide the bridge to universities that we so want.

Local government resources education, which, together with social services, accounts for almost half the local government spend. The fact that local government received record funding, despite a tight spending settlement, is testament to our support. John Swinney made a serious point yesterday. If the Parliament and Government face a £500 million cut in public resources in 2010-11, that will be a big challenge for us all. I hope that we can come together to resist that. Investing in education, universities and colleges and in local government will help us to come through the economic downturn and ensure that we are well placed for the future.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of the statement, and I assure her that the Scottish Conservatives will support the overall objective of boosting the number of specialist science and technology graduates in Scotland. That objective builds on the previous Executive's plans, and it is in line with ensuring that educational research and economic objectives are pursued in parallel. It also overcomes some of the doubts that colleges, universities and employers have had about the future in the area.

I welcome the determination to provide more practical work and related experience for our top school leavers, but I note that the cabinet secretary believes that that can be achieved primarily in the school set-up by the introduction of a new Scottish science baccalaureate. I have three specific questions on that. First, does the cabinet secretary agree with the academic who said this morning that, because of the restrictions in many schools on offering advanced highers, perhaps only 200 pupils in any year group would take the Scottish science baccalaureate? If she does not agree, how many pupils does she estimate will end up with the award?

Secondly, can the cabinet secretary provide details of how the Scottish baccalaureate will be viewed for university entrance? Most specifically, will a pupil with the award gain advantage over pupils who do not have the award but who perhaps have better qualifications across the curriculum? Finally, will she provide a reason why only some subjects are deemed worthy of inclusion in a Scottish baccalaureate system?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The first question was on the numbers, and that is the challenge. We currently have about 30,000 sixth year pupils, and only about 3,000 would probably be eligible. There is a lot of welcome interest from early adopters of the baccalaureate, but we would not expect all those pupils to take it in the early years. However, that is the point: if we want more pupils to take science at universities, we need more of them to take more science subjects and at higher levels—to higher and advanced higher. The point of the exercise is to grow the numbers and provide an incentive to do that. As Elizabeth Smith identified, the interpretative project will be part of that.

The second question was about university entrance. We published the details of the strategy yesterday, and we have had discussions with the Scottish Qualifications Authority and universities. Universities across Scotland are welcoming the baccalaureate and, following their advice and at their request, we have included advanced higher English in the languages baccalaureate and advanced higher maths in the science baccalaureate.

Over the next few months, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service and universities will consider the tariff values of the baccalaureate for university entrance. The first baccalaureate graduates will take the award in summer 2010. The intention is for university website prospectuses to mention the baccalaureate immediately, while printed prospectuses will do so to cover applications for university next year. In the next few months, universities and UCAS will therefore take forward the tariff requirements.

The third question was on why only some subjects are in the baccalaureate. We need to improve our science position in Scotland. I make no apologies for trying to do that, and that is why we are advancing the science baccalaureate in particular. Such is the interest that has been generated that we are considering arts and social sciences for the future, but science must be our main focus at this stage.

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

I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for the advance copy of her statement, which came with a helpful quotation at the top that the cabinet secretary did not read out. The quotation was from Joel Barker:

"Vision without action is merely a dream."

I suspect that that is a new summary of the Scottish National Party's record in the past year.

Liberal Democrats welcome the framework. We will study it closely, and we will support the Government's practical steps to implement it. The cabinet secretary's statement mentioned the most announced prize in Scottish history—the saltire prize. When will that prize actually be awarded rather than announced again? Mention was also made of the baccalaureate. Stapling qualifications together does not send out strong signals to universities or schools, and a likely 7 per cent uptake of eligible students is worrying.

I know from my constituency, with the research in the school of textiles and design and the economic development of ProStrakan, the need for economic development and research to work together. Will the cabinet secretary address concerns about the real-terms cut in higher education and research funding? That was a catastrophic decision in advance of an economic downturn. Will she also address the concerns that exist about Scottish Enterprise's operating plan? It does not support businesses that primarily serve local markets, which include many science and research businesses. Will she review Scottish Enterprise's funding and operation as we go into recession?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We should be honoured that one of the prestigious professors of the Chinese Academy of Sciences has agreed to join the judging board for the saltire prize. I understand that further details of the prize will be announced next week. It is attracting great international attention and focuses on Scotland's capabilities for renewable energy. We should all pull together to support that.

The member asked about funding. In this comprehensive spending review period, the Government is investing a greater proportion of its overall budget in our universities and colleges than the previous Administration did. Universities asked us to ensure that the profiling of the resources was extended so that there were increases in the later years of the spending review rather than the early years, and we took a responsive attitude towards that request.

I agree with Jeremy Purvis that the connections between enterprise and the local economy are vital. Knowledge exchange must not only reach for high-profile proposals—particularly proposals in life sciences, such as those that we see at Little France—but penetrate deeply into our economy, particularly our small and medium-sized enterprises. The biggest challenge is stimulating the demand for science at SME level. That can happen not only with universities but with colleges. Part of the knowledge exchange agenda is to progress that with colleges and universities.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary reassure me that, with all the emphasis that is being placed on science, the background that engineers require in later life will not be overlooked at school?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The answer is yes. Indeed, as reflected in my answer to Elizabeth Smith's question, the baccalaureate focuses on science, engineering, technology and mathematics precisely for that reason. We have a big demand for engineers in Scotland and we must stretch the most able in our schools to ensure that we fulfil it.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Does the cabinet secretary share my view that it is crucial to bring together our scientific communities in universities and industry to create high-value collaborative research and development projects, such as the Centre for Health Science in Inverness, which has an emphasis on knowledge transfer and provides a bridge between town and gown?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I agree absolutely. Maureen Watt visited Lifescan Scotland only recently. We have a comparative and competitive advantage in Scotland because of the collaborative pooling that has been established, which is the envy of many other areas in Europe. The UHI Millennium Institute, in which David Stewart takes a keen interest, makes a particular contribution to collaboration between institutions, but we are working with different universities throughout Scotland. The connection between companies and universities is critical, which is why the science framework places a strong emphasis on what we can do to improve it.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

The cabinet secretary has highlighted the need to increase the research and development that take place in Scotland. What role does she envisage the enterprise agencies playing in achieving that?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The integration of enterprise work is critical. Joe FitzPatrick welcomed the announcement that the Scottish institute for cell signalling was to be established at the college of life sciences in the University of Dundee. The institute is a good example of how to ensure that businesses are plugged into the fantastic, world-class research that takes place in Scotland in a way that helps to commercialise that research, which is critical. Its development was a result of co-operation between the Scottish funding council, our enterprise agencies and the University of Dundee.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary mentioned the joint future thinking task force. The other week, it faced concerns that there is no new money and that the horizon fund is being created merely by top slicing other budgets. She stated her intention to provide a higher proportion of funding for knowledge exchange. Will that increased proportion be additional money or further top slicing from universities' already tight budgets? What will the timescale be for the increase? The funds that are proposed for the horizon fund are, in many cases, already committed, and I am concerned that, without more money, there is a danger that other important projects may lose out.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We are all operating within the budgets of the current spending review—everybody is aware of that—but we have given a clear indication of the direction in which we want to take investment in knowledge exchange in the future. It would be far more helpful if members would recognise that, although we would like to have additional resources to distribute across the sectors—in particular, science—it will be particularly challenging to find those resources in 2010-11 if we face £500 million cuts in the Government's budget.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Half a million women in the UK are qualified in science, engineering or technology but less than a third work in those sectors, all of which already suffer severe skills shortages that are set to worsen. That situation is bad for our productivity and competitiveness and undermines our aspirations for fairness and opportunity. Why is the Government's strategy silent on that gender imbalance and what specific actions does the Government propose to take to improve women's participation and position in those sectors?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

That is an appropriate question. We need role models in science for young women. We have no better such role model than Professor Anne Glover, who is the Government's chief scientific adviser.

Alison McInnes is right to identify the gap that we must bridge. There is a real issue, particularly at primary level. Primary school teachers are predominantly women and 90 per cent of them feel more comfortable teaching biology than physical science or chemistry. That is why we introduced £250,000 for the science centres—Glasgow Science Centre in particular—to bridge the gap by helping to support education for, and the understanding of, primary school teachers.

There is much that we can do on that matter. If we think that we could do more, we will do it and, if Alison McInnes wants to suggest anything to me, I would be very interested in taking it forward.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The development of wind and wave power provides Scotland with the single biggest manufacturing, technical and scientific opportunity that it has had in 100 years. Will the cabinet secretary commit to allocating sufficient knowledge transfer and skills transfer funds to allow the burgeoning wave and tidal industry to develop at the pace at which it should be developing?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The saltire prize will help to showcase the capability in that industry. However, ensuring that we have the necessary technical expertise at all levels—not only in high-level research, but at the technical level—is a real challenge.

Another challenge that we face is the economic downturn. That is why the Government's economic strategy still stands. We should look to the renewable energy sector to help us to come through the economic downturn and become a place of expertise, skills and development in renewable energies. I am discussing with the Scottish funding council and Skills Development Scotland how we can best support that. Particularly in the short term, transferring people with similar engineering skills from other areas of work into renewable energy would be worth while.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The cabinet secretary described the low proportion of commercial R and D that takes place in Scotland. Does she agree that Scotland's contribution may have been underestimated? Many statistics are collected on a UK basis only, therefore R and D may be allocated totally to the country in which a company has its headquarters. Does she also agree that industries that conduct much research in Scotland, such as the pharmaceutical industry, should be requested to provide more detailed breakdowns of where they conduct their research?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Dr Ian McKee raises an interesting point. I would like that to be the case, but we must deal with the statistics that we have. Indeed, various parliamentary committees have taken a keen interest in the matter since the Parliament was established and have identified a shortfall of research and development in Scotland. We should certainly interrogate the statistics more to determine whether there is an issue with companies that are headquartered in England attributing R and D solely to that country and not to Scotland. However, there is still a big gap and, if we want to improve Scotland's productivity and economic growth, we must tackle that gap and bridge it.

Sea Fisheries

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-2966, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on sea fisheries.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I welcome the opportunity to debate this year's fisheries negotiations. They are vitally important to our fishing communities, economy, food policy and marine environment. Today, we will debate not only total allowable catches and quotas, but a way of life and a valuable part of Scotland's heritage. The debate is not just about the vessels and crews that go to sea, but about the thousands of Scots who work onshore in our processing factories and on the quayside.

People throughout Scotland know the risks that our fishermen take to put healthy food on our tables and we should reflect on the fact that, once again this year, some have tragically made the ultimate sacrifice in doing so. I am sure that members will join me in paying tribute to the Stornoway coastguard and the wider service, following last night's rescue of the crew from the Banff-registered Enterprise II that got into difficulties.

Scotland's people look to their Government to fight hard for their fishermen, and the fishing industry can rely on the Scottish Government to represent the industry's interests relentlessly. The negotiations come at the end of a year that has brought positive developments and challenges in equal measure. The year started on a high when we secured an historic deal in the European negotiations, which brought back to Scotland a degree of fisheries management that enables us to pioneer our own days-at-sea regime.

The resulting Scottish conservation credits scheme allows fishermen to benefit from additional days and acknowledges the steps that they take to conserve valuable stocks. We have designed a regime that provides rewards and incentives for responsible behaviour and moves away from the previous emphasis on penalties and disincentives. The fleets have benefited because they have adopted cod avoidance actions, which include avoiding closed areas and using more selective fishing gear.

The unprecedented joint working between the Government, industry, scientists and the environmental community was a key feature of our approach to last year's negotiations and has continued throughout the year. Most important, the Scottish sector has shown leadership in Europe by rising to the challenge of ensuring that cod fisheries are sustainable, leading the debate and offering solutions. It has ensured that its own house is in order, as more than 50 per cent of Scottish fisheries are now under full assessment for Marine Stewardship Council certification as being fished sustainably.

Our industry's leadership in fisheries conservation is now recognised in Scotland and beyond by retailers and consumers who seek the stamp of sustainability on Scottish seafood. A commitment to sustainability has underpinned the approach that we have taken to ensure the good management of our seas. In March this year, the Parliament supported our bid for additional responsibilities in the waters around Scotland to ensure better integration and a coherent framework for planning and nature conservation.

I am pleased to tell members that, following the First Minister's initiative in reactivating the joint ministerial committee machinery, we have now reached agreement with the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations on nature conservation and marine planning out to 200 nautical miles. That will result in additional executive devolution of marine planning and nature conservation responsibilities to Scottish ministers. It will also provide a framework for joined-up marine planning within the UK, while respecting different constitutional responsibilities; and it will support the Scottish economy by enabling us to manage marine resources coherently. That is good news for our fishermen, our other marine industries and our precious marine environments. Scotland will now take the lead on nature conservation and marine planning out to 200 miles—I know that members in the chamber will welcome that as a step forward for Scotland and for the Parliament.

Throughout this year's fisheries negotiations, I have been acutely aware of the fragile economic situation of the Scottish fleet, which will not be immune from recession. Those difficulties come on top of a rollercoaster year, during which there have been soaring fuel prices and now falling prices for seafood. I am under no illusions about the need to work creatively and energetically with the sector to secure a thriving future. During the summer, the Government worked with the industry on a response to soaring fuel prices and we did what we could within our limited budgets to back up industry ideas with cash.

We want to take a more strategic approach to funding from the European fisheries fund, seeking quick expenditure with a strategic impact. Therefore, we are accelerating the allocation of EFF expenditure and giving priority to projects that can start quickly and can guarantee spend by 31 March 2009 to deliver immediate benefits for our fishing communities. I challenge the industry to bring forward important projects that will have the highest and most immediate impact on meeting the industry's needs.

Our joint aim must be to ensure that sea fishing is an increasingly successful part of Scotland's food and drink industry, because—as skippers well know—adding value is not just about landing more fish, but about finding and keeping new markets and impressing upon consumers around the world the fact that our nation's product is healthy and of outstanding quality. My objective for this year's negotiations will be to secure outcomes that promote sustainable fisheries and that are fair and just for the Scottish fishing sector. Wherever possible, I will seek solutions that increase the choices for fishermen, reward sustainable behaviour, encourage long-term planning and bring decisions under national control.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment for giving way on his point about securing outcomes and increasing choices for fishermen. Shetland's fleet seeks increased days, rather than a loss of days in exchange for an increased cod quota. Will the cabinet secretary assure members and the industry that the Brussels negotiations that are about to begin will not result in a trade that involves an increased cod quota but a cut in days? That would be extremely damaging to the interests of the fleet that I represent in the Parliament.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I take on board the member's point about his constituents' interests—I will turn to that issue in a few moments.

Several stages of the talks are complete. In October, we secured a 33 per cent increase in the mackerel quota. Last week in Brussels, we embedded Scotland's trailblazing conservation credits scheme in the new cod recovery plan, thereby securing the long-term sustainability of cod stocks through cod avoidance measures that have been taken in Scotland, rather than through blunt cuts in fishing effort.

However, there is still much to play for and there are some difficult challenges ahead. In this week's European Union-Norway negotiations, the Government is resisting any attempt to swap our valuable mackerel quota and I will pursue vigorously the issue of discards of cod. During this year, we have been active in generating solutions to reduce discards radically. I hosted a discards summit to discuss the problem and to generate new ideas. There was complete consensus among skippers, industry representatives, environmentalists and policy makers that such a wasteful practice cannot go on and must be tackled now.

There is no benefit to the stock, fishermen or our fishing communities when fishermen have to dump dead, good-quality, marketable fish back into the sea. I have raised the matter with my EU counterparts and I met the Norwegian Government in Scotland in October. Other nations also agree with our stance. This year, we have a golden opportunity to address the dumping of good-quality fish overboard. Land more and catch less must be our guiding principle: we need to focus on what we remove from the sea, rather than what is landed ashore.

A key part of the package at this week's EU-Norway talks must be a significant increase in the North Sea cod quota—with no unreasonable strings attached. We can catch less by reducing the amount of cod that is taken from the sea, but we should land more of what we catch, rather than force the fleet to dump overboard. Fisheries management in a mixed fishery is complex, but we must allow the fleet to catch sustainable stocks, while safeguarding more fragile stocks and avoiding discards.

The European fisheries council negotiations in December are likely to be as difficult as ever. A number of key issues still need to be resolved, which include securing a rollover of the important nephrops quotas; gaining a responsible increase in monkfish and megrim quotas; and, above all, overturning the European Commission's disproportionate and draconian proposal to close demersal fisheries on the west coast of Scotland.

The science on white-fish stocks on the west coast is difficult. We need to develop sensible solutions to the challenge, but the Commission's original proposal would devastate fishing communities from Campbeltown to Kinlochbervie. It will be vigorously resisted by the Government and we will present alternative solutions. We are working with the industry on better technical and spatial measures and I am confident that we can put in place a package to ensure that there are sustainable fisheries on the west coast of Scotland.

I met the European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Joe Borg, last week to express Scotland's fury over the Commission's proposals and to make what I consider to be a good case for alternative Scottish solutions. The Commission has agreed to examine those alternative proposals. In pursuing those objectives, I aim to build on the success of the approach that we have adopted over the past year. That means standing up vigorously for Scottish interests, being prepared to take the lead on the international stage and working in close collaboration with the sector as team Scotland.

I will also make it a priority to think of the needs of not only today's fishermen, but future generations, which is why we have developed this year's proposals to safeguard fishing rights for future generations of Scottish fishermen. We have been prepared to put on the table the inadequacies of the common fisheries policy. We look forward to the European Commission's green paper on the future of the CFP and we seek the EU's agreement to debate the case for having a common fisheries policy in the first place. I am confident that it will accept the need for that debate, which will allow Scotland to present the case for returning responsibility for fishing to this Parliament—where it belongs. The CFP is discredited. The elected Scottish Parliament should manage our fishing grounds, not 27 member states, many of which are land-locked, sitting around a table in Brussels.

I believe that what we have achieved this year is the start of something better. We have laid important foundations for a sustainable future and have prioritised communities, working with people throughout Scotland to put the needs of our vulnerable fishing communities at the heart of our agenda. We—the Government, industries and communities—have pledged to protect access to our precious fishing resources and the communities that depend on them. Therefore, I urge the Parliament to support our motion and a sustainable future for our fishermen, our fishing communities and our marine environment.

I move,

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

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

In this morning's debate in advance of the sea fisheries negotiations, we want to be both positive and supportive. We do not disagree with much in the Scottish National Party's motion, but we note its suggestion that the negotiations are carried out by the Scottish Government. It is actually the UK Government that is responsible for the negotiations. We believe that it is important that any motion that the Parliament passes is accurate, so our amendment reflects the fact that it is team UK that carries out the negotiations.

In our amendment, we also note the positive approach that the new UK fisheries minister, Huw Irranca-Davies, has taken since his appointment. His predecessor, Jonathan Shaw, made a positive and constructive contribution in his time, and it was partly his ability to work with people that led not just to our having constructive debates in Scotland but to last year's deal, which we talked about as being a good one for Scotland.

When I spoke to Huw Irranca-Davies, I was impressed by the speed with which he got on the case. He understands both the big picture and the potential impact of decisions on the sustainability of our stocks and our fishing industry's ability to be successful. Like his predecessor, he does not just understand devolution but is committed to making it successful. Reading Hansard, I was struck by his willingness to listen to his colleagues in the House of Commons, not just in terms of geography but in terms of political representation. That bodes well for the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment's work with him.

One of the most important markers that Huw Irranca-Davies has laid down is the fact that he will come to Scotland next week to meet the west coast fishermen. I welcome his commitment to supporting them and to tackling Richard Lochhead's point about the severe impact on our west coast fishermen if the European Commission's response to dealing with the fragility of stocks is a draconian closure. There must be another way to address the issue.

Our amendment is an add amendment that is intended to keep the spirit of the cabinet secretary's motion. We want to reflect the importance of his and his officials' work in making the case for the Scottish fishing industry, the protection of stocks and biodiversity now and in the future. The cabinet secretary and his officials are a key part of team UK, and their expertise, depth of knowledge and ability to talk regularly to our fishing industry and environmentalists are critical to our putting forward a powerful case in Brussels.

When we debated fisheries this time last year, the Labour amendment was passed. That was a first for us, and I hope that it was not a last. At that time, our amendment highlighted the need for the Scottish Government to draw on the full range of expertise in Scotland, including industry, our environmental non-governmental organisations and, crucially, our scientific community. I welcome the effort that the Scottish Government has made in the past year to ensure that those groups work together and are part of our discussions.

Throughout last year's budget discussions, and since then, Labour MSPs have pushed the Scottish Government to provide proper financial support so that our fishing fleets can obtain the equipment that they need to fish more sustainably. Last year, we discussed net sizes, fishing effort and the need to demonstrate that we have intelligent fishing approaches and reduced effort that is backed up through monitoring. We also discussed how to tackle the scandal of discards. We need a more sustainable and responsible industry and progress is being made.

It is clear that we need a range of measures that are appropriate to the different marine geography and stocks in different parts of Scotland. The fishing industry has responded to that complex agenda too. Our amendment commends the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's recent environmental statement, which is an important marker that shows that the industry is committed to environmental stewardship and management of our fisheries. Crucially, the industry sees itself and our fishing communities as part of the solution. As the cabinet secretary said, the industry is proactively taking up a raft of environmental measures. Today, we put on the record our support for those initiatives.

Our amendment suggests that our fishermen are leading the way in Europe, but that is not just our view. Significantly, that is also recognised by our environmental NGOs. It is clearly the view of the RSPB, whose briefing states:

"We believe the Scottish Government and Scottish fishermen are leading the way in trialling new methods to conserve stocks and reduce discards. Although there are signs of recovery in cod stocks they must be allowed to rebuild through precautionary fishing methods."

As we move into the final stages of this year's negotiations, we must ensure that we have a constructive and well-made case so that the European Commission understands the effort that has gone into the arguments, which were rehearsed effectively at the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee earlier this month. The cabinet secretary and his colleagues do not have an easy task, but we must get the message across to Brussels that everyone is on board with our approach, both in Scotland and throughout the UK.

The detail is vital. The RSPB is right to point out that the cabinet secretary's land more, catch less approach will have to be monitored. It must work for the future of the industry and it must be credible. It cannot just be about stock management. It must also persuade Brussels that we are serious about making stock management successful.

In last year's debate, we discussed how to deal with discards. I am glad that the cabinet secretary mentioned that in his speech, but I ask him to reflect on the alternatives that could be developed to ensure that we get the best value from the fish that will now be landed instead of discarded. Not all the fish have a premium value; some are currently regarded as worthless. Some thought about how that fish can be used constructively to get value for our fishermen would be a good initiative.

Labour is clear that we need to get certain principles right in the long-term discussions about CFP reform. We need a stronger focus on the conservation of fish stocks and on long-term viability for fishermen and the associated industries that are so crucial to some of our most fragile parts of rural Scotland. We must not just have a series of prescriptive rules. We need a stable regulatory framework that focuses much more on long-term management planning and involves stakeholders more efficiently. We all agree that we must move away from the annual horse-trading that goes on, which is not good for the future of the industry or for long-term stock management.

We must move away from the one-size-fits-all approach towards more regional management, not just in Scotland but beyond. We must consider the different challenges in our regional fisheries in Scotland, but we must do so within a consistent and principled approach for the whole of the UK.

When I spoke to Huw Irranca-Davies this week, he was clear that we need stability for our fishing industry in the long term and that our priorities must be North Sea cod and whiting, cod recovery, nephrops and west of Scotland white fish. His commitment to keeping talking to our fishermen directly—as his predecessor did—is good news. I hope that it means that he will have a real grasp of the issues as he goes into his first talks along with our colleagues in the Scottish Government.

We all want to achieve the virtuous triangle that Bertie Armstrong mentioned to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee earlier this month. The virtuous triangle is one that sees the fisheries scientists, civil servants in the Scottish Government and the fishing industry working closely together. That joint work is crucial if we are to be successful in the future.

We have the whole of team UK behind us, but the negotiations will be tough. We must work hard to persuade the EC that closure of the west coast fisheries is simply unacceptable and cannot be the way forward. We need to be successful in the negotiations because the stakes are high.

We support the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's plea for an improved base of scientific knowledge. As we move towards the marine bill, all the key parties accept the need for a better information base. I am keen to hear from the minister how he intends to take that forward. We now have responsibilities out to 200 nautical miles and we are working with the fishing and nature conservation industries to bring their interests together. We must ensure that we have the best information at our fingertips and that we consider not just our fishing interests but the wider sustainability and ecology of the seas around Scotland. The ecological health of our seas must be part of our agenda. We have a clear opportunity to work together and recent discussions show that there is strong cross-party support for that.

We wish the cabinet secretary all the best in his work as part of the UK team to put Scotland's interests at the heart of the discussions. There are many positive comments in the amendments from the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. I hope that there will be constructive cross-party support for the cabinet secretary. That will show the European Commission that Scotland has a positive, united approach.

I move amendment S3M-2966.3, to leave out from "the Scottish Government" to end and insert:

"Team UK and in particular the positive approach taken by the new UK Fisheries Minister and the work of the Scottish Government in seeking to negotiate a deal that is fair and just for Scotland's fishing communities, and which will secure sustainable fisheries for Scotland, and commends the Scottish Fishermen's Federation's recent environmental statement and for the leadership and innovation being shown by Scotland's fishermen, demonstrating the way forward for the rest of Europe."

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I point out that, as the debate is fully subscribed, if everyone goes over by a quarter of a minute, someone is going to lose out severely at the end. Members must stick to their time.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

As we begin this debate, I feel a sense of déjà vu. Once again, we prepare for Scottish ministers—and UK ministers, whom the Government's motion curiously omits to mention—to go off and do battle in Europe for our fishermen. Notwithstanding that, I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment's statement that agreement has been reached on marine planning out to 200 miles. Such a move is, on the face of it, a step forward.

However, I regret to say that many issues that have dominated fishing discussions in years past remain. The most important of those issues—which include finding enough fish to catch in the first place, rising costs and the CFP itself—is how to reduce discards effectively. It has been calculated that, between 1992 and 2001, 50,000 to 80,000 tonnes of fish were discarded annually into the North Sea. Taking the upper limit of 80,000 tonnes—and bearing in mind that, regrettably, practices have not changed that much—we might conclude that in the past 12 years we have caught, killed and wasted almost 1 million tonnes of fish. That is a massive problem.

As a result, we must start to address this issue seriously. The time for talking about this kind of wastage has long gone and serious effort must be put into developing and using better, more effective and more efficient selective gear. To that end, the Scottish Conservatives welcome September's discards summit as a means of beginning to tackle the problem seriously. Moreover, I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments on the issue and his commitment to a land more, catch less policy.

Although that is an enduring problem that still has to be solved, of more immediate concern to the livelihood of west coast fishermen is the Commission's proposal virtually to close the west coast fisheries this year to assist the recovery of demersal stocks, which have apparently reached critically low levels. In evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, the cabinet secretary said:

"The scientific knowledge base for the west coast is a lot smaller than it is for other fisheries".—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 5 November 2008; c 1167.]

If the end result is that fisheries have to be completely closed to allow stocks to recover, the situation as explained by the cabinet secretary seems extraordinary at best and at worst almost negligent.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member raises an important issue. I should clarify that, unlike the situation in the North Sea, Scotland has a predominant interest in the west coast and very few other nations fish there. As far as sharing scientific responsibility is concerned, we are basically on our own.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I do, of course, accept the cabinet secretary's explanation. However, the fact that a suggested closure of this size and scale has crept up unexpectedly on fishermen and Government alike is shocking, and the threatened loss of livelihoods as a result is worse. The displacement of boats from the west to the east coast, where stocks are under pressure, will put at risk the viability of many other fishing businesses and communities, as there will simply not be enough fish to go round. The knowledge gap must be plugged first if we are to safeguard livelihoods.

We must also find ways not only of keeping west coast boats in west coast fisheries but of allowing them to catch at least prawns and scallops in addition to monkfish while keeping to a minimum the bycatch of demersal species, particularly young cod, haddock and whiting. Principles and techniques employed in other fisheries for conserving stock, namely the use of separation grids and increased mesh sizes, might be able to be adapted for use in the traditionally smaller west coast trawler but, as we know, time is of the essence if any practical measures are to be put in place for this year.

Another problem is west coast herring. A 52 per cent cut has been proposed in stocks, which appear to have reached a critical level. How has that critical situation developed? Is it a surprise to everyone? I am also concerned that herring stocks are not growing. More research should be carried out into the disappearance of plankton on the west coast and the possibility that climate change is reducing the viability of that precious stock.

I welcome the modest recovery in cod stocks. However, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea's proposal of a complete ban on landing North Sea cod in 2009 is unrealistic and unwelcome. Fish should be permitted to be caught and landed, without allowing them to be specifically targeted. If we believe that ending the wasteful discards policy is at least a primary concern—if not the primary concern—we must believe that caught fish must be landed. However, we need to strike a balance between allowing fish to be landed as a bycatch and discouraging the targeting of at-risk species. As a result, the price paid to fishermen has to be enough not just to discourage targeting but to encourage landing. That is what happens in Norway, and more work needs to be carried out in the UK and the EU to allow us to reach that position.

Of course, the situation is more complicated in our warmer waters because the fisheries are more mixed. However, that does not mean that we should not try to find our own formula for achieving a balance and we welcome the conservation credits scheme pioneered in Scotland as a way of dealing with the issue. We are also hugely encouraged that the European Commission is keen for similar methods to be rolled out EU-wide. It is a tremendous tribute to the work of our fishermen.

The cabinet secretary will know that the Commission has proposed a zero TAC for another under-threat species, the spurdog. Although the proposal is well intentioned, it will have the unwelcome effect of guaranteeing the discarding of any spurdog caught as bycatch. That said, the fact remains that Scotland's once-thriving spurdog stocks have been decimated in recent years and are in dire need of recovery.

We welcome the Government's motion, commend our amendment to Parliament and wish the cabinet secretary, his team and the UK Government every success in representing Scotland's best interests in the forthcoming negotiations.

I move amendment S3M-2966.1, to insert at end

"; notes with concern the European Commission's proposals for west coast stocks that, if implemented, could especially damage the viability of the west coast langoustine sector, and therefore calls on the Scottish Government to work towards a settlement that successfully balances the need to conserve depleted west coast whitefish stocks with a thriving langoustine fishery."

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am delighted to open the debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, although I have to say that I feel a little like the warm-up act. More observant members will have noted the presence on the benches behind me of my colleague Ross Finnie, nostalgia and déjà vu doubtless washing over him. I do not for a moment want to compare Mr Finnie to an aging rock star, but his appearance does have the feel of a comeback gig about it. However, I am sure that I am not alone in looking forward to his speech. His participation today is certainly an appropriate reminder of the historical context to the subject under discussion and to what has become a unique annual ritual in the parliamentary calendar.

As the cabinet secretary is aware, the serious challenges that he and the rest of the UK negotiating team face this year are not unusual. EU negotiations and the December fisheries council have rarely been viewed with anything other than trepidation by our fishing industry and others involved.

Thankfully, we have come some distance since the particularly difficult times that we experienced five or six years ago. However, without some of the tough decisions that were taken at that time, it is inconceivable that any minister would have been in a position to deliver the speech that Mr Lochhead delivered this morning. Although the prospects for certain key stocks are still deeply worrying, the fact that catching capacity is now more in line with available fishing opportunities means that the options open to ministers and officials to secure a deal that is indeed "fair and just" as well as sustainable are immeasurably enhanced.

That difficult period also saw much of the early trialling and promoting of gear selectivity and a range of other technical measures and the development of a more flexible system of managing effort through kilowatt days. The idea of closing certain areas of the sea to fishing at certain times was also being worked up, although early Commission counterproposals on that were blunt and misdirected.

It is encouraging that the industry, in close collaboration with scientists, environmentalists and the Government, has taken forward work on that suite of measures to the point that they are starting to be rolled out. As the Government's motion rightly acknowledges, that is something for which Scotland's fishermen deserve credit for having taken the lead. Like Sarah Boyack, I congratulate the cabinet secretary on his role in that effort, although I caution him against making any suggestion that he has taken on the work from a standing start. Although more must be done to refine this more sophisticated management regime, not least if we are to address the economic and environmental affront of discards, it is to be hoped that we can start to draw a line under the sort of blunt, one-size-fits-all measures that elevated simplicity over effectiveness.

Key to that shift has been and will continue to be the work of the regional advisory councils. Introduced in the reform package of 2002, the RACs have not all operated as effectively as they might have done, but we are fortunate that the councils that are key to our industry have proved their worth. I trust from his declarations since taking office that Mr Lochhead now regrets dismissing the North Sea RAC as

"nothing short of a worthy but glorified talking shop".

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the member give way?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will clarify his position on the matter.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member might recall that all those years ago the RACs were criticised for not having management powers. Indeed, it was said that such a move would require a treaty change. Does he feel that such a criticism was justified?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Liberal Democrats have long argued that RACs must eventually take on more of a management role. There seems no reason why that cannot and should not happen.

Commissioner Borg himself admitted to the European Parliament Fisheries Committee recently that micromanagement from the centre does not work. He is right. He is right also to point to the need for fishermen to be given proper incentives—a little more carrot and a little less use of the stick. The conservation credits scheme reflects that, and it is important that such an approach is built into any reform of the CFP, which is now under discussion.

Our negotiating position in the talks on the future of the CFP will not be strengthened by people noising off and suggesting that Scottish ministers are hell-bent on a unilateral withdrawal. Although the First Minister has been cagey of late, the recent consultation paper on quota management was less equivocal. It boldly declared:

"The Scottish Government is seeking to withdraw from the CFP".

That position is both unrealistic and unhelpful. Although the 2002 CFP reforms did not achieve everything that we would have wanted, the key objectives were secured, not least the safeguarding of relative stability, the Hague preference and the much-cherished Shetland box. Those are fundamental features of the CFP that have served our industry well. They will be under threat again in any reform negotiations and must be defended at the same time as we argue for even greater regional management of our fisheries.

Of course, there are more immediate priorities. Although the prospects for a number of stocks are fairly promising, there are still serious concerns in some areas. Of particular concern is the situation on the west coast, as John Scott rightly said. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee took evidence on that recently. Nobody disputes the depleted state of the key white-fish stocks, but a wholesale shutdown of the west coast fisheries is neither sensible nor justified.

John Scott rightly pointed to the threat to the extremely valuable prawn fishery. I agree entirely with the points that he made about a fishery that has been prosecuted sustainably. Those fishing grounds are also crucial to parts of the white-fish fleet, including boats from my constituency as well as from Banff, Macduff and Fraserburgh. A complete closure could force some boats to the wall or displace effort back into the North Sea, neither of which is desirable. I do not expect the cabinet secretary to disclose his negotiating position, but I was encouraged by the reassurances in his opening speech.

Tavish Scott has highlighted concerns about attempts to reduce effort as part of a trade-off for more quota. That could pose a serious threat to the economic viability of the Shetland and Orkney fleets. I hope that the cabinet secretary will bear that in mind as the negotiations progress.

This will be a more consensual debate than those that we have had in the past. Liberal Democrats offer our full support to Scottish ministers and the rest of the UK team in these important negotiations and we are happy to support both the motion and the amendments in the names of Sarah Boyack and John Scott.

I move amendment S3M-2966.2, to insert at end:

"welcomes the work that Scottish fishermen have been taking forward with government, scientists and others over recent years to develop a more sophisticated approach to protecting cod and safeguarding fishing opportunities; recognises that the process of improving stakeholder involvement in EU fisheries policy began with the establishment of the influential regional advisory councils, and calls on the Scottish Government to continue driving forward this regionalised approach as a means of improving fisheries management decisions within the Common Fisheries Policy in the interests of sustaining stocks, Scotland's fishing fleet and the communities that depend on it."

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I welcome the cabinet secretary's announcement this morning of new powers out to the 200-mile limit. His announcement is a welcome relief from what I would otherwise call groundhog day—or, rather, groundhog month. Every year, with monotonous regularity, the EU delivers initial proposals that would be unbelievably damaging to entire communities in Scotland. Then, with equal regularity, subsequent negotiations result in a final determination that pulls back from the more apocalyptic predictions and everyone breathes the annual—partial—sigh of relief. One fishery or another is lined up for annihilation, then a reprieve is offered at the last minute. Frankly, the annual round of brinkmanship is doing the EU no good at all. It is little wonder that the whole CFP is called into question.

We should remember that more than two thirds of the UK fisheries industry is based in Scotland. It is of massive economic importance: the total value of the catch that was landed by Scottish vessels last year sits at £380 million.

In the context of this year's negotiations, it is also worth remembering that there are many ways in which the Scottish industry is a pioneer. For example, our approach to sustainable fisheries is set to be adopted throughout the EU as part of the new cod recovery plan; levels of fishing have been reduced substantially over several years; and further voluntary measures are being taken that will continue to make a difference to cod stocks in the future. Scotland is also the first country in Europe to implement a new cod conservation scheme. Under the voluntary real-time closure scheme, skippers will signal when they encounter lower than expected numbers of cod and the area will be closed. The Government will also close areas where there appear to be too many undersized cod.

Such measures show that there is no lack of willingness to take the issue seriously, but this year—once again—the industry has been initially confronted with a proposal that would amount to almost total shutdown of the west coast fisheries. In an attempt to assist recovery of the whiting, cod and haddock stocks, an effective zero catch suggestion would lead to the destruction of the langoustine trade, which would no doubt be regarded by Brussels as nothing more than collateral damage.

As might be expected, my colleagues from the Western Isles are shocked by the implications of the EU's stance. Indeed, in the debate in the House of Commons last week, Angus Brendan MacNeil commented that it would mean the tie-up of 400 boats from Kinlochbervie southwards—or, perhaps, their appearance in the North Sea, which would be equally unwelcome. Maybe there is room for manoeuvre on that, but approaching negotiations in such an alarmist manner is no way for the EU to win friends and influence people. Perhaps it has even given up trying.

In passing, I add my voice to the request from other members of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee that, however difficult it might be, the Government ensure that research is conducted into the west coast fisheries. If we are on our own with that one, we had better get the ammunition that we need for the negotiations.

Most people agree that tackling the problem of discards may go some way towards ensuring that cod stocks will recover. Few can regard the existing system as making any sense at all. Chucking back fish that are already dead is of no use to anyone and, frankly, it looks like a criminal waste of food. We need much more information about the level of discards, but we must also ensure that measures are in place to reduce those levels. The cost of discards is enormous. In the North Sea, whitefish vessels discard between 500,000 and 880,000 tonnes of fish every year—that is €75 million-worth and about 42 per cent of total landings in a year. Scottish fishermen alone dump about 100,000 tonnes a year, which is £14 million-worth of fish. That is a lot of fish and a lot of money. It is not just a waste of food; it is also having damaging environmental and ecological effects.

The discards summit in September identified potential solutions involving net-size changes, temporary closures of fisheries and restrictions on the number of days at sea. Those indicate the willingness of the industry to self-police, so it would be interesting to hear whether there has been any response from the EU to that.

I cannot cover all the issues in one speech, but I reiterate the point that I made at the start: Scotland's fisheries make up the greater part of the total UK fishery. Therefore, I cannot see why Scotland's fisheries minister must sit outside the negotiations. It makes no sense at all, regardless of anyone's position on the constitution, and it hampers Scotland's ability to be heard on the issues that are most vital to our industry's future.

Even the Commission acknowledges that the CFP as a whole has been less than successful. It has been criticised as being overcentralised. In that context, the SNP's anti-CFP stance seems, ironically, to be more in keeping with the EU's stance. I ask the other parties in the chamber to reflect on that reality instead of lodging rather silly amendments, such as the Labour amendment, to the motion that we are debating today.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the Labour amendment. We believe that it is important to highlight the partnership working that we all hope will be successful in achieving progress in the December talks. It is a partnership that, of course, includes the Scottish Government but which also includes the new minister—Huw Irranca-Davies—and Bertie Armstrong and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. It is team UK that is taking the issue forward, not team Scotland.

All partners are united by the need to reduce discarding. During his evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee earlier this month, the cabinet secretary stated:

"The future cod recovery plan should be based on a regime that allows us to catch less but land more."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 5 November 2008; c 1168.]

In last week's debate in the House of Commons, the Minister for the Natural and Marine Environment, Wildlife and Rural Affairs, Huw Irranca-Davies, referred to the very successful conclusion to the first stage of the negotiations at the November Council and stated that

"our Government's approach is to land more and to discard less."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 20 November 2008; Vol 483, c 457.]

Bertie Armstrong described to the committee the

"perversity of cod stocks being nearly as much bother on their way up as they were on their way down."—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, 5 November 2008; c 1148.]

He also described the need for the TAC to match abundance in order to reduce the level of discarding. If the TAC is to be increased, measures must be in place—such as temporary closures and monitoring—to ensure that discarding really is being reduced and that we can prove it.

During the budget discussions last year, my colleague Karen Gillon argued for assistance to be provided to fishermen to enable them to purchase new gear, such as nets that are designed to reduce the catch of unintended species. Those may be nets with larger mesh sizes that allow juveniles through or nets that are designed to enable certain fish that swim in a particular way—such as cod, which swim downwards when they are caught in a net—to escape.

In January, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee's report to the Finance Committee on stage 2 of the Budget (Scotland) Bill recommended that a significant proportion of the marine management budget line should be set aside in the first year of the spending review to support the fishing industry in progressing its commitment to sustainable fisheries by, for example, adopting use of the best available gear in order to reduce by-catches and discards.

When I raised the issue of funding for new gear with the cabinet secretary this month, he advised me that funding is available for trials through the Government's partnership with the SFF, and that fishermen can also qualify for grants for new gear through the European fisheries fund. Will the minister provide further information on that funding route when he sums up?

I will deal now with species that are less familiar to most of the population, but which are affected by fishing practice, although they are not the main focus of the forthcoming negotiations. Sharks do not generally inspire the same level of affection as other well-known endangered species but, as the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network and the save our sharks campaign have demonstrated, many of our native shark species are now endangered.

Commercial recreational sea anglers release their catches alive back into the sea. They recycle fish but like commercial fishermen, they also make a valuable contribution to remote and rural communities. Those fishermen have monitored dramatic reductions in the populations of sharks, skate and ray in Scottish waters. Many of the species that were once plentiful in the Solway Firth, for example, are now rarely to be found.

The removal of one species from the marine environment can have unexpected consequences on other species that inhabit the same waters. Spurdog, which John Scott referred to, were targeted by commercial fisheries in the late 1980s—for the purposes of their sale as an edible fish, they were known as rock salmon. The population was decimated within five years, but as a result of the removal of that predator, whiting stocks in Luce Bay thrived. The whiting, in turn, predated on the flatfish population, which has still not recovered from that period.

Tope is in the frame as a commercial species, partly because of the market for shark fins for shark fin soup. This year, the UK Government and the Welsh Assembly have regulated to prohibit commercial fishing of tope. It is disappointing that Scottish ministers have refused to give the same protection to the species in Scottish waters but instead intend to wait until ICES states that the species is at risk.

The European Commission proposes to set zero TAC limits for spurdog and porbeagle and to prohibit retention of angel sharks, common sharks, ungulate rays and white skates. It is also proposed that existing skate and ray quotas be reduced by 25 per cent and that new TACs be introduced for those species in currently unregulated areas. I would like to hear Scottish ministers' views on that. Ministers have stated in answers to written questions that there should be no fisheries that are directed to commercial fishing of elasmobranchs— as rays and sharks are collectively known—but that small, unavoidable by-catches should be landed. I disagree with John Scott's view, but the issue needs to be discussed. We need to think about how "small" and "unavoidable" are to be defined, and what will happen to those by-catches. Will they be sold commercially? If so, how do we prevent the creation of a commercial market for those species and stop them being targeted, albeit that the number in Scottish waters is low? I am sure that such topics will be on the agenda of the cabinet secretary's meeting with the Scottish Sea Angling Conservation Network on 11 December.

I am pleased to support the amendment in Sarah Boyack's name, and ask ministers to consider some of the points that I have raised.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am grateful for the chance to speak once again in a fisheries debate. However, rather than speak about fish, I wish to speak about the people who fish for them and the people on the mainland whose jobs depend on the industry: we should never forget that for every job at sea there are four on land. Fishing is one of Scotland's most important primary industries, so it is absurd that the Scottish fishing fleet, which has done more for conservation measures than any other fleet in Europe, has continually to bear more pain than any other fleet in the EU.

I am well aware of the impact that the meteoric rise in fuel prices—which doubled between 2007 and 2008 from 30p to 60p a litre for marine diesel—had on the fishing industry, particularly on smaller vessels, many of which simply had to stop fishing. Fuel prices have since reduced, but we must ensure that our Government is better prepared should that happen again, especially as fishermen from other member states received direct help with their fuel costs through de minimis aid payments, which also put our fishing people at a competitive disadvantage.

Others have mentioned the appalling waste and the damage to the marine environment that are caused by discards. Can anyone member justify throwing dead fish back into the sea? It makes a mockery of the CFP.

I would like to concentrate on the problems on the west coast and sector VI A. In the north-west, we still have 10 large boats fishing for white fish off the edge of the shelf on the 100 fathom contour line. The Commission proposes to close all fishing for white fish inside the line and to make boats that fish for prawns inside the line use grids to stop any white fish from going into the net. I am sure that the minister will have talked to prawn fishermen who will have told him that it is pretty much impossible for the smaller boats that use power blocks to use those grids. As the minister knows, those 10 large vessels in the north-west will be tied to days next year, which means that, when the kilowatt days that those boats have saved in the past run out, they will have insufficient days to make a living. Ironically, French and Spanish boats that are fishing in sector VI A will not be tied to days because their catch of cod is under 5 per cent—according to them.

Basically, in that case, unless the minister can secure extra quota of monkfish and megrim for our fleet, he will be leaving that area of the north-west coast to French and Spanish boats at the expense of our own fleet. I know that the minister said that foreign vessels do not fish that area—I presume that he was referring to dedicated prawn vessels rather than to whitefish vessels. Will he please fight for the extra quota for monkfish and megrim, in order to give those fishermen a chance to earn a living?

Because of the under 5 per cent rule, the smaller artisanal boats that fish for prawns in sector VI A will be able to continue to fish. However, because of the new cod recovery plan, the effort on the west coast is facing a reduction of 25 per cent. The cod recovery plan proposes to eliminate that reduction in return for good behaviour. The rules for this buy-back must be rapidly established, and those groups of fishermen that might benefit from the entitlement should be consulted. Will the minister please do that as soon as possible? Will he consult the west coast fishing associations on that as a matter of utmost urgency? It has been pointed out to me that the cod recovery plan allows the possibility of excusing from the plan vessels that catch less than 1.5 per cent of cod. If that turns out to be practical, it should be taken further, with a view to implementation.

Earlier, I mentioned the grids that the EU wants Scottish fishermen to use. The fishermen do not think a great deal of the idea—in fact, the chairman of one association suggested implementing a grid to eliminate a large proportion of MEPs' expenses. If the proposal is not amended, it will prohibit scallop fishing altogether.

There are two main questions. First, is the grid appropriate for the west coast, in conservation and practical terms? Secondly, even if it is, is there a net configuration that could be adopted that would avoid having to use the grid? Square-mesh panels are a good conservation measure and could be made to work better if they were put nearer to the cod end of the net. I know that fishermen in mixed fisheries—that is, demersal and prawns—do not want a square-mesh panel of above 110mm, and they want a cod-end mesh of a minimum of 80mm. However, the Clyde Fishermen's Association has proposed for the clean nephrops fishery—which has an extremely small by-catch—a non-mandatory alternative of 160mm square-mesh panel set closer to the back end of the net.

That proposal fits in well with the good-behaviour practice that would allow prawn fishing to continue. It also fits in with the European Commission's proposal that a more flexible approach is required to allow genuine conservation measures to be taken where they are most needed, while helping the industry to benefit from recovery once that recovery has taken root. It is vital that the minister consider that matter. I am somewhat horrified to see that the 2008 autumn fisheries negotiation paper, which is headed "UK Priorities", has no reference whatsoever to the west coast closure. That is simply scandalous, so I hope that the minister will highlight that dangerous situation.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the member give way?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No—the member is just concluding his remarks.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In fact, I had just concluded them, Presiding Officer.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I welcome this morning's announcement that marine planning and conservation are to extend to 200 miles. As a former fisheries minister, I remember beginning elementary negotiations in which the concept of marine planning was much misunderstood and great efforts were made, largely by Scottish civil servants, to explain the concept and why it was naive to believe that simply linking conservation and fisheries would be sufficient. A risk always existed that if a planning regime was superimposed at a later date, Scotland's absolute right to control its sea fisheries could be totally disrupted. Therefore, the news is welcome.

We are back at the annual round of negotiations about which I probably have a greater sense of déjà vu than any other member. I am sorry that Roseanna Cunningham has left the chamber, because she spoke about something that many people pick up on—the somewhat alarming news that always comes at the beginning of the process. We must always be cautious about such information, because it is largely founded on the advice from ICES, which is, after all, scientific advice. If a scientist finds that a stock is in a state of collapse, it would not be expected that he would say other than that he believes that, in extremis, stopping the fishery is probably the best solution. I have always thought that it would be better to await outcomes from the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries, which asks how proposals will impact on communities, before we start to draw unnecessary conclusions.

I welcome the fact that the European Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, Joe Borg, continues to show interest in reshaping the CFP into a more decentralised model. That is reflected in how he has approached the changes to the cod recovery plan. I also welcome the fact that Scotland, whose civil servants have operated in, and at the head of, the committees that consider fishing conservation, has been able to progress the conservation credit scheme and to build on earlier work. I say to Jamie McGrigor that, in 2006, Scotland specially designed the panel at the rear end of the cod net to prevent juvenile cod mixing with nephrops. I am sure that the minister already knows that there is evidence on that, and that it will form part of his negotiations on the threat to the west coast nephrops fishery.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does Ross Finnie agree that it is possible to improve the square-mesh panel so that it is better than the grid, which the fishermen do not seem to want?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I do not wish to become controversial with fishermen; I am more interested in what the scientists have to say. The scientists positioned the cod panel as far to the rear as is possible without the net becoming unstable. It was proved to the European Commission that that worked, and the Commission accepted its impact.

I am pleased that agreement is beginning to be reached on discards. However, the cabinet secretary is well aware that one difficulty among many in dealing with that complex issue is that landing more fish is complicated by our need to maintain relative stability across member states, in the allocation of catches across TACs, and across producer organisations. That adds pressure to getting agreement on such a critical matter.

I am concerned for three reasons about the new plan setting the target rate for F—fish mortality—at 25 per cent in year 1, one of which is historical. Finding that a target had been set that was very difficult to achieve in year 1 has always been a bugbear. This year's ICES report states that the biomass precautionary point

"cannot be achieved in two years even with a zero catch."

Therefore, I am concerned that increasing the spawning stock biomass—the SSB—consistent with an improvement in F of 25 per cent is a tall order. It is always important to try to give the fishing fleet a sense of stability. If that is not achieved, things are more difficult.

It is clear that the west coast is the problem of the year. As the minister has said, the ICES advice is not acceptable. As I said, the STECF points at least to the opening of the negotiation door, although the TAC reductions that it has referred to will be difficult to achieve.

Scotland has always entered the negotiations better prepared than any other fishing nation, and Commissioner Borg is a much more rational and pragmatic commissioner than other commissioners in the recent past have been. Given the Scottish Government's armoury and its ability to propose constructive technical measures—its excellent officials have always been prepared to do that—we may make progress, but solutions will not be easy, because dealing with collapsing fishing stocks and the competing social pressures of fishing communities is not an easy circle to square.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

As members know, I am a Lossie loon fae a fishin toon. Therefore, I would like to start by telling a story about Lossie, which has a long fishing history.

Some 202 years ago, on 25 December 1806, Lossie suffered a fishing disaster. The disaster was really the Stotfield disaster—Stotfield was a small village to the west of Lossie, which has now been incorporated into it. On that Christmas day, the village lost its fleet of three fishing boats in a violent storm. Each skaffie boat had a crew of seven—there were 21 men and youths. The morning was fair when the boats set sail for the fishing ground, which was just a mile or two offshore, but the weather took a dramatic turn for the worse, and violent winds from the south-west blew the boats away from land and down the firth. The boats were overcome by the storm's violence, and the village lost all its able-bodied men and youths in one afternoon. The boats and men, who had the shoreline in view, were never seen again, and the village was left with 17 widows, 47 orphaned children and two old men. Stotfield never recovered from the disaster, and no fishing boats have set sail on Christmas day since then.

I have told that story because the disaster is talked about in Lossie to this day. It illustrates the lengthy and strong connection to the sea and fishing that places such as Lossie and other Scottish communities have. Unfortunately, such links are being broken; indeed, they will soon be merely history if we do not ensure that our fishing industry is supported and developed. I do not know whether the marina in Lossie will ever be converted again into a busy fishing port, but I know that the Scottish National Party Government, unlike our unionist colleagues, who have presided over the destruction of our fishing industry, will do all that it can to ensure the survival of that industry.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No. I do not have much time.

Labour's amendment mentions team UK leading us. Is that the same team UK that created the credit crunch and has led us into recession?

The Tories started the destruction of fishing when Ted Heath's Westminster Government sold out our fishing industry in negotiations to enter the European Economic Community in the 1970s. The callousness of their approach was revealed in a memo from senior civil servants that described our fishing communities as "expendable". That is why the people who live in places such as Lossie no longer vote Tory.

Labour and the Liberals have been no better: their Scottish coalition consistently let down our fishing communities in eight years of tugging forelocks to Westminster. In that time, those parties managed to lose 1,000 Scottish fishing boats, 3,000 Scottish fishermen's jobs and more than 1,000 fish processing jobs.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No. I do not have much time.

During the Labour-Liberal coalition's period in office, the Scottish white-fish fleet was reduced by two thirds, while other EU countries, such as Spain and Ireland and non-EU countries such as Iceland and the Faroes, expanded their fleets. The Liberals now want to compound the folly of their years in power by supporting the common fisheries policy, which has been a disaster for Scotland. That is despite the fact that Tavish Scott has consistently rubbished the common fisheries policy in the past. Supporting the CFP will go down like a lead float in the Highlands and Islands. However, every cloud has a silver lining—even fewer members who support that policy will be returned to Parliament after the next election.

Despite the unionist cabal's best efforts, we still have a fishing industry that contributes immensely to the Scottish economy. In the Highlands and Islands, where 66 per cent of the Scottish fleet is based, the value of landings is £144 million. Fishing directly supports 2,800 jobs there and Highlands and Islands Enterprise estimates that it supports as many as 2,200 jobs indirectly.

Fishing is particularly important on the west coast. That is why the European Commission's ludicrous proposal to reduce to zero the number of white fish that are caught there must be defeated. I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary's robust views on that. The proposal would have a particularly bad impact on prawn boats. As Jamie McGrigor said, they would require to be fitted with a special plastic grid to retain prawns and allow white fish to escape.

The proposal would affect about 350 vessels and cause severe financial hardship to hard-pressed fishing communities, which have already suffered because of high fuel prices in the summer. Such grids are not even usable on many west coast vessels, which tend to be 10m to 15m long and to operate with low engine power and small crews. If grids were adopted, such boats would be unable to fish.

The grids become easily blocked with weeds and debris, which leads to a loss of catch. They have serious safety issues—Danish fishermen stopped using them after they became stuck in power blocks. According to fishermen, a better solution to the problem is square-mesh panels in place of grids—that has been mentioned—and spatial closure of fisheries at spawning times, to reduce discards of juvenile cod, haddock and whiting.

The market situation is dire, because the credit crunch is affecting consumers on the continent. Our cold stores are full of prawns, the crab market has collapsed and lobster is at £10.50 a kilogram, compared with £16 a kilogram last year.

I know that Richard Lochhead and our pro-fishing SNP Government will do their best to safeguard Scotland's fishing. They should have the lead in the forthcoming talks, because two thirds of the UK's fishing industry is based in Scotland, although I cannot see that happening, short of independence.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member must wind up.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Happen it will an it's nae far awa.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will discard the previous speech and return to the more consensual tone of the debate hitherto. I have reflected on the debate that we had last year, which showed a growing consensus not just among the parties in the Parliament but among the UK Government, fishing organisations, conservation bodies and the Scottish Government acting in concert on the policy direction for the fishing industry's future. There is little debate among us all about the need for greater action on discards; the need for more technical measures; the important benefit to the whole scene of real-time closures of fisheries; and the benefit of having observers on boats. There is much debate about the detail but little debate about the policy direction. That is a good thing.

Recently, I have been encouraged that the European Commission has bought into that consensus. It has shown welcome signs of being interested in the approach that has developed for many years in Scotland, as Liam McArthur said. That consensus appears to be holding—with one or two wobbly moments, which we might just have detected.

In the evidence that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee has heard in recent weeks, I have detected almost no disagreement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government's negotiating line. Fishing organisations felt involved in the development of the UK line and everybody has been moving in the same direction. In any negotiation in which different parties come to the table, differences in emphasis and nuances in arguments will always exist, but it is generally good when all parts of the UK head in the same direction on such important matters. That should give us grounds for optimism.

However, we must continue to be realistic about the challenges that we face throughout Europe and more widely on our fish stocks. The sad truth is that, despite the encouraging signs in some areas and in some fishery sectors, the overall state of stocks is not good. People are generally optimistic that things are on the turn in cod stocks and that we can make further progress, but WWF Scotland reminds us in its briefing for today's debate that, despite the signs of recovery in the North Sea following a strong year group in 2005, 84 per cent of the international landings in 2007 consisted of juvenile cod between the ages of one and three. That means that only 12 per cent of the two-year-old cod of the 2005 year class will survive to maturity. WWF also reminds us that, despite the focus on reducing discards and the welcome measures to do that, the level of discards in 2008 was even higher than that in previous years.

There is still much more to do. We can advance, but we cannot be cavalier in doing so. In some traditional waters, to which members have referred—I will talk about the west coast—agreement appears to be widespread that the state of whiting, haddock and cod is alarmingly poor. It is clear that the reasons for that are not fully understood.

However optimistic we are about progress on policy and on working methods, we need to continue to apply the precautionary principle to how we advance the policy. The advice to the Commission from ICES takes that approach, to which Ross Finnie referred. However, the Commission and national negotiators also need to decide on the actions that follow scientific advice—they need to factor in practical, social and economic considerations. The Commission has traditionally staked out firm and sometimes alarming positions early in the process, but it is a negotiation, so some movement will always take place. In any negotiation, movement might have to be on more than one side.

Movement is still required from the Commission on the west coast plans, to which other members have referred. The Commission's original signal that it would close the entire fishery was unacceptable. We still need to close a deal that continues effort at current levels in the nephrops fishery. We are having problems with white-fish stocks, but prawn, megrim and monkfish stocks appear to be capable of continued exploitation.

We must ensure that technical measures suit the fishery, as others have said. The proposal of separator grids in nets in that fishery is unworkable. However, fishermen already use square-mesh panels. They would be happy with further advances in such panels, if that were necessary to secure a deal. If that were necessary in the short term to secure a deal, I would be interested in hearing the cabinet secretary address the measures that he could take to support the industry to make such a dramatic change.

West coast fishermen have a bycatch problem not with cod but with dogfish. In last year's negotiations and agreement, a 5 per cent dogfish bycatch was accepted. The problem is that the agreement resulted in increased discards. If the 5 per cent were applied over the whole year, it would be workable and a reduced bycatch would be deliverable, but that is not the case for a 5 per cent measurement per landing. I hope that that will be picked up in the next negotiations. I am pleased that Sarah Boyack's discussions with UK ministers on the west coast issues have revealed not only that they understand the issues but that they are willing to work with the industry to find solutions.

Scientific knowledge about what is happening in the west coast fishery is in a poor state. The lack of such knowledge could hamper future negotiations. I note what the cabinet secretary said and I would be grateful if he could say what more we can do to improve that scientific knowledge and therefore the capacity to secure deals in the future.

We need to convince the Commission that the constructive and helpful measures that are being taken in Scotland will deliver in the long term. I hope that the cabinet secretary will address what we can do transparently and openly to reassure the Commission that what we are doing in Scotland is not just good but successful.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

My speech was originally going to be something of a jeremiad but, after listening to the debate, I have taken some comfort from much of what has been said. When I first saw the SNP's motion, I was concerned about the complacency that seemed to be inherent in it. As Sarah Boyack said, the motion does not contain much with which to disagree, but it is so short that it does not contain much to agree with, either. However, it has left room for an informative debate.

I note that the European Commission's directorate-general for maritime affairs and fisheries said in a communiqué last month that ecological sustainability must have top priority because it is the basis for social and economic benefits. The word "ecological" is missing from the SNP's motion. If the motion referred to ecological sustainability, I would be more impressed.

Given that it was not accepted for debate, I cannot speak to my amendment to the motion, but I will skim through it briefly. After that, I will comment on aspects of the speeches that have been given thus far. I sought to add at the end of the motion:

"acknowledges that, while progress has been made in moving to more sustainable practices, these are still at a very early stage and much more work is required; understands that the scale of damage to our marine ecosystems leaves no room for any level of complacency whatsoever; recognises the huge challenges that face European fisheries ministers as they negotiate this year's round of fisheries talks, especially given that most of the world's fish stocks, including those in European waters, are low-to-endangered; believes, therefore, that it is important to undertake a suite of measures to prevent discards, such as encouraging greater use of selective fishing gear, banning of the most destructive fishing technologies, greater coverage of onboard observers and the temporary closure of fishing grounds to prevent the capture of juvenile or spawning fish, especially to support cod recovery, no-take zones and days in port".

Many of those things are being done, although on-board observers and no-take zones have not been mentioned and days in port have been mentioned just once.

My amendment concluded:

"and believes that it is important to negotiate a deal that is fair, profitable and sustainable for all of Europe's fisheries in order to restore all European marine ecosystems and secure sustainable fisheries for the foreseeable future."

When the cabinet secretary takes part in the negotiations at European level, it is important that he presents the progress that we have made and tries to persuade the rest of Europe to follow our example. He must not allow that aim to be swamped by the many concerns about specific Scottish fisheries that have been expressed today, many of which are reasonable, and the many other concerns that he will carry with him. Our fishermen are leading the way in Europe but, given how far other European fisheries are from achieving the restoration of an ecologically sound and secure marine ecosystem, that is not particularly challenging.

I have some questions for the cabinet secretary, some of which he may be able to address in his summing up, although that will depend on the state of Government monitoring. Does he know how many boats use the new nets that reduce still further the catch of non-targeted species and undersized fish? Will he build on the progress that we have made in order to reach the point of being able to commit unequivocally to making ecological sustainability the key aim of his fisheries management policy?

Some time ago, the cabinet secretary announced his welcome commitment to a land more, catch less strategy. How is that being monitored? How will future progress be monitored? For example, when I last asked for details of temporary closures, they seemed to be few in number and not particularly significant. However, I understand that he may have better news to impart. Also, have any skippers been cautioned for breaking the voluntary limitations on activity? How is compliance in that regard being ensured?

I turn to members' speeches in the debate. Liam McArthur mentioned catching capacity, saying that it is more in line with available fishing opportunities. I am not certain of that. As everybody knows, catching capacity is measured by the total power of the engines in the Scottish fleet. Indeed, that is the most sensible way in which to measure it. Members need to be careful not to cite the total number of boats when speaking about the impact of the fleet; they should instead cite total power. In answer to a recent parliamentary question, I was informed that total power has decreased by roughly 1 per cent per annum since 1996 and yet, subsequent to the registering of a boat, no monitoring is done of current engine power.

I was very impressed by much of what the cabinet secretary said in his speech. I am also impressed with his achievements so far and I wish him all the best in the negotiations. However, I departed from agreement with him at the point at which he spoke about leaving the CFP. That is an irrelevant fantasy. We cannot do it. He should not waste the chamber's time in talking about it.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The other day, I was contemplating what it is that Governments do. I did not do so in a desperately philosophical vein, given that I am not a desperately philosophical man but, at a practical level, I thought about what Governments can actually achieve. My conclusion was that, in the general run of things, Governments should try to smooth out the perturbations that come along in life, in recognition of the fact that they cannot resist trends. Recently, we have discovered a substantial perturbation in our economic system. If we had seen it coming—a few did—more proactive actions might have reduced the perturbation, but the trends, including long-term economic trends and the effects of technology, are irresistible, and we know it.

The same thing applies to the North Sea and all our marine waters: we cannot resist the trends, whether they are climatic, technological or ecological. We may never understand much that goes on in our seas, but Governments should try to smooth out the perturbations as we go along.

Today is the first time that I have taken part in the annual fisheries debate. Clearly, the problem in debating the issue is the fact that the negotiations are held on an annual cycle. That is simply far too short a timescale within which to debate the kind of things that we are discussing today. I am not being critical; I understand that that is what we have to do and that the cabinet secretary has to work with the timescale, as was the case for his predecessors. However, although I understand it and agree that it is right, an awful lot of what has been said is too short term. I encourage the chamber, the cabinet secretary and his advisers to think more about the longer term.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am sure that the member will take some reassurance from the fact that the CFP reform that is going forward features the idea of multiannual programmes and plans.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Yes. I recognise that that is how folk see it.

If we are prepared to look that little bit further ahead, we should be able to envisage, somewhere in the future, a more stable fisheries environment. I am talking not about having an environment in which the numbers are the same every year—that is not what stability is about; everything in the natural world has its oscillations—but about taking the longer-term view.

Surely by now, Government and its scientific advisers should be able to say, "If we sort it out on the way, perhaps in 10 years' time, these are the kinds of stock levels that we could have." I do not know whether the timescale will be five, 10 or 20 years—the people who know about fisheries will know that. All I know is that, by now, we should be able to look forward to the time when we have a relatively stable environment. The projections may not be desperately accurate, but if we can do the numbers, we will start to see how many fish we can pull out of the water, how many boats will be needed and what the economics of that will look like. In that way, we can see what the total industry that is sustainable for the long term will look like. All of that is simple maths.

I see no evidence that anyone has the numbers. I assume that people have started to do them and that they have started to do the modelling. In calling for that, I am neither asking for the unimagined nor expressing any particularly imaginative or far-ranging thoughts. If we can do the numbers, in future we should start to see where we are, what short-term changes need to be made and where we expect to go to. All of that will, of course, be modified as time goes by.

Instead of talking annually about the disaster that scientists are predicting, about the stance that the EU is taking and about this or that fishery—all of which is relevant, of course—we ought to be saying, "This is where we are, this is roughly where we think we are going and this is the kind of chart we could plot." Is that asking too much? I do not think so. The only other member who said that was Ross Finnie. Perhaps it is because he was the fisheries minister in the past, but he was the only member to say that we have to look to the longer term.

I agree absolutely with John Scott about the need for research into plankton levels. Other members have mentioned the need for research. When we put together a model of how the seas work—which is surely not beyond our scientific communities—and put numbers into that, we ought to be able to see where we could go and be better at plotting how to get there, instead of having annual negotiations at which everyone throws in numbers. I commend Scottish fishermen on what they are doing. I also commend the cabinet secretary and his predecessors on getting us into a position where Scotland is leading the way, through all the schemes that have been mentioned—I have no desire to repeat them, as I normally would. However, as members will have understood, I am concerned that we should find a longer-term model to which we can work.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I rise to support the amendment in the name of Sarah Boyack. Like other members, I wish the minister well in the negotiations that will take place imminently.

Although Scotland has a population of just over 5 million out of a UK population of around 60 million, Scotland's fisheries account for almost 80 per cent of the UK's fishing activity. Fisheries are the mainstay of some of the most peripheral rural communities in Scotland and Europe, and a sustainable industry is vital for the future of all of us. It is right to remember in this debate that, across the ages, fishermen have faced genuine dangers every day—dangers such as those that led to the tragic loss of the Solway Harvester. Our hearts go out to the families who have suffered tragic losses over the ages at the mercy of the sea. Many fishing communities besides Lossiemouth have experienced losses. One such is Eyemouth, where I had the privilege of standing as Labour's candidate at the Westminster elections in 1997. It was salutary for me to learn about fishing life in that community, and the lesson has remained with me.

During my term of office as vice-president of the North Sea Commission, which ended in 1999, I learned much about the fishing industry. The commission embraced all the countries around the North Sea and included a major thematic group on fisheries, which continues to the present day. At that time, Drew Ratter became a well-known figure in other EU countries, representing the views of Scottish fishermen. I was also a member of the European Committee that reported to the Parliament on how the common fisheries policy should be renegotiated.

It is helpful that a debate takes place before the European Union's December fisheries council, as that gives all of us an opportunity to shape the way in which negotiations proceed. I am aware that 2009 is important because of the introduction of a marine bill and the consultation that has been initiated on improvements to the common fisheries policy.

When reading the Official Report of the annual fisheries debate in the House of Commons, I was interested to note that the fisheries council had reached agreement on a revised cod delivery plan. We know that there are other headline priorities—whiting, nephrops and west of Scotland white fish—that are of major importance not only for Scotland but for the UK industry as a whole. We all want all want to see more cod landed and sold, and fewer caught and thrown away—more landed, fewer killed.

Some say that there needs to be more focus on the EU-Norway negotiations, which are viewed as crucial, and that the December fisheries council should be left simply to carve up what has been agreed. It is argued that the EU-Norway talks are of such importance that they merit direct input from politicians, rather than just officials. I know that Huw Irranca-Davies is involved at ministerial level, for the talks are pivotal, not least in deciding what will happen to total allowable catch adjustments. I hope that Richard Lochhead is involved in those meetings. I will be interested to learn from him when he winds up how many times he has met Huw Irranca-Davies and how he reports back to the Parliament on those meetings.

At the Westminster fisheries debate, Huw Irranca-Davies spoke about the important upcoming review of the common fisheries policy. He said:

"I want the UK to play a key role in shaping the reform agenda."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 20 November 2008; Vol 483, c 395.]

I agree with Robin Harper that it would be very wrong for us to pull out of the common fisheries policy. Labour in the Parliament believes that the CFP needs to have a stronger focus on delivering outcomes that secure both the conservation of fish stocks and long-term economic viability for fishermen and associated industries. We believe in the emphasis on long-term management planning and better stakeholder involvement, and the move away from a one-size-fits-all approach towards stronger regional involvement, to which many members have referred. There is immense potential for regions to play a major role in the regionalised strategy towards which Europe is moving. I strongly disagree with all those who say that we should withdraw from the CFP—many people do not realise that that would mean our having to leave the EU.

I ask members to reflect on the finance that the EU and Brussels have provided regularly to help our fishing communities. For example, last year, it was announced that the Highlands and Islands would get about one third of the money that would come to Scotland from a new fund set up by Brussels to support the fishing industry. The European fisheries fund was to hand out £39 million to fishing and aquaculture, to help the industries to modernise and to make them more competitive. Almost £12.5 million of the Scottish cash was to be delivered to the north of Scotland. The money went initially to the Scottish Government, and it was expected that the Government would invite applications for grants that year, after it had sorted out its priorities. It would be interesting to learn how much of that money the Scottish Government has granted to the fishing industry in Scotland in the past year.

Scotland was to receive 40 per cent of the total funding for the UK under the scheme. Given that Scotland's fishing activity accounts for 80 per cent of UK activity, I am surprised that the minister, Richard Lochhead, negotiated only 40 per cent—why not 80 per cent? I am pleased to note that the European Commission has approved the UK operational programme and that the scheme is up and running.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the member give way?

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The member is in her last minute.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

More than £100 million has been provided to improve sustainability and to provide marketing and technology to help the fleet to adapt. I hope that the minister will ensure that Scotland's fishermen receive a fair share of that European funding—80 per cent, not 40 per cent.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Today's debate has been mainly good. The cabinet secretary and Sarah Boyack recognised that our fishermen have worked hard to develop and adhere to sustainable fishing methods. Scottish waters are some of the richest in Europe. Elaine Murray gave a long list of the fish that are in our seas—who knows, with a change of habit and climate, we may see piranhas in Palnackie one day, although that is doubtful.

Fishing is an economic mainstay in many parts of Scotland. We have witnessed a large-scale decrease in employment in the industry, due to restrictions on tonnage, but parts of the area that I represent, the South of Scotland, still have an interest in fisheries. They include Eyemouth, which experienced a disaster rather worse than the Lossiemouth disaster that was mentioned; coastal Berwickshire; East Lothian; and, to the south-west, Annan, Solway and the Ayrshire coast. The industry is vital to retaining population and maintaining viable communities—Jamie McGrigor focused on that issue.

Liam McArthur stated that we need to ensure that there is a balance between economic activity and profitability. The aim should be to have a sea fishing industry that is sustainable and profitable, to support communities. The industry must be allowed to use quotas sensibly, while meeting commitments to conservation. That is a difficult balance to strike.

It has been recognised today that the Scottish fishing sector has already made a substantial contribution to achieving the sustainable management of cod stocks—that has been evident recently, even under the three-year plan. It is clear that cod stocks are heading in the right direction, thanks to the efforts of our fleet. Many members, including John Scott, have noted that increases in total allowable catch for cod must be part of any solution. Combined with other measures such as changes to net size, that approach will reduce the number of discards; prevent the catching of juvenile fish, spawning fish and non-target species; and help to create an economically sustainable sector. Nigel Don was right to suggest that we need to look even further into the future than we are looking at the moment.

In the coastal waters of Berwickshire, vessels are reliant on nephrops, which many speakers have mentioned—especially langoustines. By value, langoustines are probably the single most economically important species that the Scottish fishing industry catches. In 2005, landings were worth £38.5 million, compared with £22.5 million or thereabouts for haddock. Rightly, many members have mentioned the west coast problem, which is serious, but in Berwickshire fishermen are concerned about recent Commission proposals to reduce some North Sea catches by up to 15 per cent—a reduction of 13 per cent is proposed for the crucial langoustine catch in the area. A cut of that size would have an impact on the livelihoods of fishermen in Berwickshire. I would like to hear from the cabinet secretary how it is proposed to fight the case for the Berwickshire fleet. Like others, that fleet has had to bear increases in fuel costs, as Jamie McGrigor mentioned. The proposed reduction will do nothing to help those fishermen, and I question the science behind it. In his discussions with Joe Borg, will the cabinet secretary be resisting the proposed reduction which, if it is applied, will press even further an already hard-pressed sector?

My colleague Michael Moore MP and I have been campaigning on the draft European fisheries fund programme and its implications for Eyemouth and the Berwickshire coast. In particular, we have sought fisheries-dependent area status for Berwickshire and the creation of local committees of industry representatives to oversee the allocation of programme funds. I am delighted to say that it looks as though the hard work of many people in the industry, including the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the Anglo-Scottish Fishermen's Association, has paid off, as it seems that the developments that I have mentioned have been achieved.

Axis 4 funding, together with local control of spending, will be crucial for areas such as Berwickshire, because that will build on the sector that is already there. It will provide support for diversification efforts and will potentially attract inward investment, from tourism initiatives for example. The goal is the long-term sustainable development of coastal communities. I hope that efforts in that regard will provide another opportunity for people in fishing communities.

The good work of my colleague Liam McArthur, who recently met Joe Borg in Strasbourg, has been well outlined today. The Liberal Democrats' position is clear. The SNP must make a strong case for Scotland, as part of the UK. I am glad to hear that Scotland now has jurisdiction out to 200 miles, which Ross Finnie and the Liberal Democrats have long argued for in order to have more regional management of our fisheries. Our past involvement in setting up the influential regional advisory councils, with Ross Finnie, was an integral part of that process. We need to continue to make progress there.

We have consistently argued for further reform of the common fisheries policy to give local fishermen and other stakeholders a better say in the management of their own regional waters. Dave Thompson must have had his head in the sand when he was speaking earlier. The industry must be quite disgusted by his poor contribution. Liam McArthur noted that, when regional advisory councils were introduced, both the SNP and the Tories described them as glorified but toothless talking shops. That is not the case.

I hope that the cabinet secretary will make the defence of Scotland's fisheries sector as strongly as the Liberal Democrats did in the past—and will continue to do. I welcome the extension of jurisdiction to 200 miles and the work that is being done on discards. I look forward to having a sustainable fishing industry in the long term.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The December fisheries council will once again be of crucial importance to Scotland's fishing communities, particularly those on the west coast. Today's debate has fairly reflected the issues of concern that the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee raised and were agreed on by all parties.

We are happy to commend the work that has been done on sustainable fishing. We particularly praise the leadership that Scotland's fishermen have shown over the past year, following the acceptance last November by the European Commission of a different approach to the management of species such as cod, founded on mortality-based targets rather than biomass-based targets.

It is good news that the conservation credits scheme, which was piloted by Scottish fishermen, has been such a success that the Commission is set to roll out a similar approach EU-wide next year. We were also very pleased to hear this morning about the co-operation on marine planning between all the UK Administrations, which will be welcomed by all who depend on our seas for their livelihoods.

We are extremely concerned, however, that the Commission's proposals for west coast stocks could severely damage the nephrops sector, which is worth more than £30 million to the west coast economy, hence our amendment stresses the importance of achieving

"a settlement that successfully balances the need to conserve depleted west coast whitefish stocks with a thriving langoustine fishery."

That view is held across the chamber, and we think that it needs to be reflected in the Parliament's resolution at decision time. I hope that our amendment will attract cross-party support.

We can all agree that the European Commission's commitment to a more flexible, localised approach to fisheries management, with a focus on conservation measures rather than on the discarding of overquota fish, is a welcome policy change. Despite its decimating the Scottish fleet, the ill-thought-out and aggressive quota reduction policy of recent years has not benefited fish stocks. There is no doubt that the main problem with the system has been the huge number of discarded fish. Between 50,000 and 80,000 tonnes of fish per year were thrown back into the sea dead between 1992 and 2001. That amounts to up to 60 per cent of the North Sea cod catch. We fully support the Government's commitment to pursue vigorously the issue of discards in mixed fisheries.

It is to be hoped that the new cod recovery plan, which was agreed in Brussels last week, will lead to reduced mortality. Linking time at sea allowances with voluntary measures should allow fishermen to land more of their catch and reduce discards. The EC target of a 25 per cent reduction in cod mortality next year will be hard to meet, but it will be up to member states and their industries to work out how to achieve it, rather than there being central control from Brussels. That is to be welcomed. I hope that Scotland will be able to achieve the target by continuing with its pioneering efforts to avoid catching cod, including the voluntary closure of areas where there are young or spawning fish and the technical alterations to nets to release unwanted fish. Those measures should protect cod and reduce discards.

As I indicated earlier, we share the general dismay at the draconian proposals for the virtual closure of west coast fisheries, which have been made without consultation with the industry and are quite unacceptable. It is shocking, as John Scott said, that a proposed closure of such magnitude should come out of the blue, catching both fishermen and Government unawares. In an area such as the west coast, where white-fish stocks are known to be low, surely there are ways to allow for the catching of nephrops while minimising the bycatch of species such as haddock, whiting and cod.

Far be it from me to argue with Ross Finnie, given all his experience of fisheries, but we know that urgent steps are being taken by fishermen to develop suitable nets, as they consider the proposed grids to be impractical. There is still a danger that virtually the entire west coast nephrops sector could be closed down to secure the demersal stocks, even though such scientific evidence as is available suggests that nephrops stocks are stable and are not being overharvested.

I support the plea that Roseanna Cunningham and other members made for more research into west coast fish stocks, because as long as there is a knowledge gap, the stance taken by Europe is likely to be overly precautionary.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Nanette Milne has spoken about cross-party support, and I do not disagree with any of what she has said so far. Will she support the amendment in my name, and indeed the amendment in Sarah Boyack's name?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will not make a decision on that at this point. We are still reflecting on the amendments.

The proposed closures would have a major adverse impact on remote west coast fishing communities, whose existence is already fragile. As others have said, if the fishermen who are threatened are forced into other parts of the north-east Atlantic in search of fish, it will help nobody. I hope that the cabinet secretary's alternative proposals will be accepted by the Commission, and that he will pursue the matter vigorously and relentlessly.

We welcome the Government's motion, but we urge the cabinet secretary to work with his UK colleagues towards a settlement that will successfully balance the need to conserve depleted west coast white-fish stocks with a thriving langoustine fishery, in line with our amendment. We join others in wishing the UK and Scottish Government teams every success in next month's negotiations in Brussels, and we hope that they will be able to achieve a good settlement for our hard-pressed and very well-deserving fishermen.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The debate has been useful, and it signifies that the majority of the Parliament wishes to be constructive and to support team UK in the fisheries negotiations. The Scottish Government plays a pivotal role in that. It is important that all devolved Administrations and the Westminster Government come to the negotiating table united around a strong case with sound arguments, which must be based on good science. Our case is surely strengthened by our fishing industry's pursuit of sustainability. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation must be one of the first fishermen's organisations to produce its own environmental statement. As Sarah Boyack said, its stance is endorsed by RSPB Scotland, which is a high accolade indeed.

It is welcome that the UK lead for the fisheries negotiations, Huw Irranca-Davies, is coming to Scotland to meet representatives of the west coast fishing industry. While the work of the Scottish Government in bringing the case of the Scottish industry to the UK team is crucial, such hands-on involvement by the UK minister is welcome. I accept that the cabinet secretary would prefer to be alone at the negotiating table, although we will always differ on that. However, he must put aside his ideological aims in order to represent the needs of our industries and communities. Indeed, I think that he is doing that, which is commendable.

There are no easy solutions to the many issues that have been discussed in this debate, although much of what has been said has been supportive. I will try to cover as many of the issues as possible. Helen Eadie said that perhaps there should be a discussion before the Norway negotiations. Maybe we need to take that on board, because negotiations at EU level sometimes dwarf what goes on at the Norway level, which is important to our fishing industry.

Sarah Boyack and Liam McArthur referred to the virtuous triangle of scientists, Government and the industry. Jamie McGrigor built on that idea when he said that, although the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is involved in the talks, we need to talk to other fishermen's associations and involve them as well. That was a useful contribution, and I urge the cabinet secretary to consider ways of bringing the associations on board. They have a lot to say about gear changes.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I reassure the member that I enjoyed a recent visit to Mallaig to discuss with the Mallaig and North West Fishermen's Association the impacts of the proposals on future fishing policy, and that I have met a number of other fishermen's associations.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

That intervention is welcome.

Megrim has been mentioned in the debate. I recently met fishermen in Shetland for whom the megrim fishery is valuable, and they are concerned that the megrim TAC is not rooted in science, because it is based on landed catches, which are restricted due to TAC levels that do not take into account discards. Indeed, the science on the TAC dates from 1999. The fishermen were so frustrated by the lack of science that they commissioned their own research, which shows that the TAC should be increased. I ask the cabinet secretary to examine that research and decide whether it can be included in our scientific appraisals for the negotiating table.

Many members have talked about the need to reduce discards. There is agreement that discards are wasteful and that we need to look at ways of getting round them. However, as John Scott and Elaine Murray said, that is not straightforward. We cannot make it financially viable to take overquota fish back to port, but at the same time we must make the system attractive enough that people will adhere to it. Mention was also made of discarded species that are not marketable, and whether we damage the environment by using fuel to bring them into port just to stick them into landfill. There are no simple answers, but we need to do more work on discards. In fact, everyone agrees that discards must be tackled in the round, but that that will not be straightforward. My colleague Peter Peacock made the only positive comment about discards when he said that we should discard Dave Thompson's speech—I think I will do that. In passing, I contrast his speech with Nigel Don's thoughtful speech, which we should all take notice of and reflect on.

Members have agreed on the alarming state of the west coast fishery's white-fish stocks and the concern about what will happen to the prawn fishery. Many members talked about going back to Europe and discussing how we can use technical measures and new gear to protect the fishery. The measures that Europe offers do not fit our boats and are unworkable. We need to go back to the negotiating table and find a solution. Many members also talked about ways in which we can assist the west coast fishery by implementing measures that will allow the fishermen to pursue the area's prawn fishery while protecting the white-fish stocks, which we all agree are in a difficult position.

Members agree about the technical measures that are in place. Elaine Murray pushed for assistance for fishermen in that regard. She also referred to Karen Gillon's request last year for assistance for fishermen to improve their gear and mesh sizes. Jamie McGrigor clearly asked that the industry be listened to on changes to technical measures. It is important that we bring the industry into the discussions, because it knows what works.

There is also agreement on the science and on the lack of it. Ross Finnie was clear that we need to take scientists' work on board. I do not think that any member disagrees. The concern is that, for many of our fisheries—for example, the west coast megrim fishery—there is little science. We must look at ways to reduce that scientific shortfall. As Roseanna Cunningham said, if we are on our own in those fishing waters, we need to take the scientific aspect on board and pursue it on our own. I am interested to hear what the cabinet secretary says about that in his winding-up speech.

Elaine Murray referred to sharks, which I do not think any other member did—sorry, I remember that John Scott did as well. She said clearly that a reduction in the numbers of one species has a knock-on effect on the ecological balance, which we must take into account.

Comments were made about the challenges in the cod recovery plan and, I suppose, how cod is as much trouble on the way down as it is on the way up, and vice versa. We need to deal with the issues and ascertain whether we can work with the industry to ensure that there are no rapid changes, so that it can rebalance itself to work in prevailing conditions.

Jamie McGrigor and Ross Finnie mentioned the onshore industry. I am disappointed that I am running out of time, because it means that I cannot talk much about that. We need a way forward. We were happy to hear about the devolution of planning, but we want it to be devolved further, maybe through regional advisory councils. It is important that people who have a stake in fishing work with the industry.

We wish team UK well in the negotiations and hope that it will work well for our fishing communities. We will support all the amendments to the motion.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I welcome the first-class and thoughtful contributions from members throughout the chamber, beginning of course with the speech of Sarah Boyack, the new secretary of the Huw Irranca-Davies fan club. I am sure that her colleagues will want to find out how much it costs to join. I promise that when I meet the minister, whom we have invited to Glasgow to meet representatives of the west coast fishing sector, I will get a signed photograph to bring back to Sarah Boyack.

A number of important issues have been highlighted in the debate. I will do my best to touch on as many of them as I can in the limited time available. Perhaps the first issue to discuss is discards, because I think that members mentioned it more than any other issue. I very much welcome the unanimous support from all parties for taking radical action to address discards. The issue is complex, and there will be no overnight solution. However, there is momentum, involving the industry, the environmental community and the chamber, that has not existed before.

Of course, the issue of discards is not just for fisheries debates; it is an issue for the public, because discards are seen as precious food that is dumped overboard and back into the sea. At a time when the whole world is debating food shortages, healthy and valuable food is being dumped overboard. Of course, it is not just the Scots fleet that must abide by regulations or face being accused of breaking the law. Across all fleets in the North Sea, 1 million tonnes of fish has been dumped overboard each year for the past few decades. It will be a huge breakthrough if, over the next few weeks, we can successfully tackle the important issue of discards, around which there is so much consensus.

The cost to the Scottish fleet alone of discarding marketable fish is £40 million a year. If the fleet could keep even part of that, it would increase the income of the sectors around Scotland's coasts. It is unacceptable that the fleet is asked to spend money on expensive fuel to catch fish that it is forced to dump overboard dead, then to catch more fish later that it is likewise forced to dump overboard dead. At the moment, it is a lose-lose situation, but I believe that we can get to a win-win situation.

Elaine Murray and others mentioned spurdog in the context of discards. We support the Commission's position that there should be a 5 per cent bycatch of spurdog. I know that people think that there should be no such bycatch, but if there is no bycatch of spurdog, there will be a discarding of spurdog. While we must ensure that spurdog is not a targeted fishery, we must allow a bycatch to be taken or spurdog will simply be discarded overboard. The same applies to many species that are up for discussion in the next few weeks. We have to bear in mind the fact that the discards issue relates not just to cod but to other species.

I welcome Ross Finnie's speech, which reflected his many years' experience in the talks. We may not have much in common in other areas of politics, but we have our experience of the bizarre machinations of EU fisheries councils in Brussels and Luxembourg. It is testament to Ross Finnie's strong character that he survived eight years of the talks. Last week, in Brussels, I had only six hours' sleep during three days of negotiations.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Nightclubbing?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I was not nightclubbing. I was fighting hard, first for Scotland's fishermen and then for Scotland's farmers.

Ross Finnie highlighted the complexities of the discards issue. We should bear in mind the fact that there will be no overnight solution.

Sarah Boyack mentioned the important issue of adding value to the fish that are landed. We must work more with the industry in Scotland to get the message across that increasing income and making more profit are about not just landing more and more fish but getting a better return from the marketplace for the fish that are landed. That is important, which is why the Scottish fisheries council set up a working group, in which retailers and the industry can sit down together to try to achieve greater value.

The concept of catch less and land more has won widespread support among members. We are promoting that new approach to fisheries management in Scotland. Where we apply that concept, it is possible to catch less by avoiding cod stocks and other valuable stocks while landing more of what we catch. In a mixed fishery, we will catch cod and other stocks, so fishermen should be allowed to land them. It is possible to promote fisheries conservation, increase the income of our fishermen and achieve many of our objectives by simultaneously catching less and landing more.

Robin Harper wondered what measures have been in place in 2008. We have had 15 real-time closures on the basis of 169 inspections. The compliance rate for those closures has been nearly 100 per cent. We have in place not only real-time closures but seasonal closures. The first closure of the season will be on 1 December. Over and above that, many new selective gear measures have been adopted throughout the fleet and more than 200 vessels are using much larger square-mesh panels.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

How do we know that there is 100 per cent compliance?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Because the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency monitors it for us, and works with the fleet on implementing the voluntary closures.

As we speak, fishermen are at sea trialling new nets. John Buchan of the Fairline and his partner vessel are at sea with a Government-funded observer on board trialling a new net that it is hoped will allow them to avoid cod but catch more haddock. In the past few weeks, Tam Harcus from Orkney has been trialling a couple of new nets. Those are fishermen coming up with their own ideas and innovations. The Government, with the industry's support, is funding those innovations to see whether they work and whether we can take them forward as part of fisheries management in Scotland.

Some members mentioned Bertie Armstrong's comment at the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee about the virtuous triangle that we now have in Scotland, with conservation interests and environmental interests working with the industry and the Government to take forward measures. That has been extremely productive over the past year or two, and it is going from strength to strength. Only last night, I met WWF Scotland and RSPB Scotland to discuss some of the issues that we are debating today.

Other members mentioned the impact of fishing on the wider marine environment and ecology. The marine bill will address that. I am glad of the warm welcome for today's announcement that we are getting executive devolution out to 200 nautical miles, following agreement with the UK Government. It is only executive devolution, not legislative devolution, but it is a huge step forward for Scotland, and it means that if marine protection areas are to be established in Scotland's waters, they will be proposed by the Scottish Government and no one else. That is an important message of comfort for Scotland's fishermen, who care deeply about executive devolution coming to the Scottish Parliament.

The other big issue that was mentioned during the debate was the future of the west coast fishery, which is a priority for the UK and Scotland. I am not sure what Jamie McGrigor was quoting from, but I assure him that the west coast fishery is a priority for the UK and the Scottish Government in the forthcoming negotiations. We cannot allow our major fleet on the west coast—the nephrops fleet—to be decimated by measures relating to white-fish stocks, because that would decimate our fishing communities there. The nephrops fleet is extremely valuable. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we are seeking alternative solutions. We are also seeking an increase in monkfish quota, because that will make an alternative fishery available to the west coast of Scotland.

We accept that the science must improve. In conjunction with the industry, we are putting a lot of effort into ensuring that we have better science in future.

On involving fishermen directly in the alternatives, the conservation credits scheme steering group, which is the industry body that comes up with alternatives to European Commission proposals, has been a major success.

Let us put the debate into context. The five most valuable stocks in Scotland are all being fished sustainably in Scotland or are on the road to recovery, for example cod, which is the fifth most valuable stock. This is a good-news story. We should not always get caught up in doom and gloom. We are sustainably fishing our main commercial stocks in Scottish waters. We pay huge tribute to our fishermen for their change of attitude over recent years and to everyone who has contributed to the debate. Dave Thompson reminded us that today's debate is about not just Scotland's past and that of our fishermen—we remember tragedies that affected Lossiemouth, in my constituency, and Eyemouth—but securing a future for Scotland's fishing communities.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many people were reported between 31 March 2007 and 1 April 2008 for (a) entering licensed premises while drunk and (b) being drunk on licensed premises. (S3O-4957)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2008 there were (a) 156 offences recorded as "drunk and attempting to enter licensed premises" and (b) 35 offences recorded as "licensed person, employee or agent drunk in licensed premises". That is a total of 191 offences under those two crime codes.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

The minister will no doubt agree that people do not become drunk the instant they hit the streets. It would seem therefore that of the 191 reported offences, there has not been the appropriate enforcement of the law as it stands. Does the minister agree?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

We are aware that people who are under the influence are being served alcohol. The licensed trade has made considerable strides in improving the professionalism of the service. Given recent tragedies and events that have been drawn to the attention of licensees by the police, the Government and the Lord Advocate, there is an understanding that this is a journey. We accept that it can be difficult for licensees when people who are unsafe or unfit enter their premises, but it can become clear when someone is well under the influence of alcohol. Fatal accident inquiries have shown that there are serious and tragic consequences. We must be ever vigilant on this matter.

Bashir Ahmad (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met representatives of Strathclyde Police. (S3O-5008)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I regularly meet representatives of all Scotland's police forces. I last met Chief Constable Steve House on the morning of Wednesday 5 November. Later that day, I met the chair, vice-secretary and treasurer of the Strathclyde Police Muslim association. The First Minister will formally launch the association in Glasgow next week.

Bashir Ahmad (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary join me in welcoming the formation of the Strathclyde Police Muslim association, which is Scotland's first ever Muslim police association? Does he agree that the organisation, due to be launched next week, will be important to further build up trust between the police and the Muslim community?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Absolutely. Scotland has been well served in the past by organisations such as SEMPERscotland—Supporting Ethnic Minority Police staff for Equality in Race. The Strathclyde Police Muslim association is a welcome venture, and it was a pleasure to meet its officials. I hope to be able to join the First Minister next week. The association has two purposes. The first is to try to reassure those coming into the police force that there is no institutional racism—I do not believe that there is any in the Scottish police force, but we must be ever vigilant and ensure that people feel safe and comfortable in joining the police. Secondly, the association can provide a good element of bonding and trust to show our communities that our police represent them all. I have said previously that we are all Jock Tamson's bairns. Our police force comes from all our communities; it must do so. Equally, the police must represent all our communities fairly and equally.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

Has the cabinet secretary discussed with the chief constables the possibility of providing headcams to police officers? The experience of the police force in Plymouth demonstrated that the introduction of such new technology helped to reduce bureaucracy, increase the number of offenders brought to justice, and reduce crime. Would the cabinet secretary consider such a proposal?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I have seen evidence of and we are watching with interest what is happening south of the border. Evidentiary matters may arise, and police safety is paramount. If such technology can assist in prosecutions, in the prevention of crime, and in the protection of police officers, we will be happy to consider it. However, these are operational matters for the chief constables and it would be wrong for me to interfere. The justice department and I will monitor the situation. If the chief constables or the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland feel that such technology is appropriate, we will be more than happy to work with them.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to improve rail services for passengers to and from Fife, from both the north and south. (S3O-4986)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

From December this year there will be 500 more seats daily, each way, between Edinburgh and Fife during the peaks, and better connectivity to Edinburgh, London and the south with new early-morning services from Fife. The new timetable provides approximately 40 additional southbound and 50 additional northbound stops, each weekday, for stations in Fife, including a new hourly service between Edinburgh and Perth via Fife.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I have written to the minister on this issue. Does he agree that many Fife commuters are being disadvantaged by the changes to the service? Many people who are trying to get to Dundee and Aberdeen cannot get to work in time because of the changes.

I have just received a 200-signature petition on the changes. Will the minister take the issue back to the drawing board, and will he discuss, with the major stakeholders, the impact of the changes on Fife commuters?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

In the new timetable, there are now 21 trains heading south from Kirkcaldy between the start of services and 10 o'clock, and 20 trains returning in the evening peak. Relatively few passengers have been joining the through trains to head north to Aberdeen. We have replaced all the services that no longer stop in Fife with new services within Fife. We seek to ensure good connections between Dundee and Aberdeen.

If the member continues to have concerns, we will look again for the next opportunity to consider the timetables. However, we continue to invest in improved services for Fife. That is undoubtedly evidenced by the huge number of trains that now run between Kirkcaldy and Edinburgh.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is the minister aware that the timetable changes, which were designed to improve services in Fife, have led to knock-on changes north of Fife? Is he further aware of a level of discontent among passengers in the north-east of Scotland over the timetable changes that are to be implemented in the middle of December? Has he had any contact with passenger groups, and will he raise the matter with ScotRail?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I would need to check with my office, but I am not aware of having been contacted on this matter by passenger groups. However, such contact may be yet to come to me.

A clear effect of reducing the number of stops of the through trains in Fife will be to improve the timeliness and speed of services to Aberdeen.

However, if issues remain that people feel that I should resolve, I would certainly wish to consider them at the next available opportunity.

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

The minister will know that constituents of mine in the Borders are currently unable to travel by rail from the south to Fife. Will he continue the constructive approach taken by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth yesterday, and will he meet me and the Scottish Borders Council to consider whether—in light of the pre-budget report on Monday and the increased capacity for accelerating capital spend—the Waverley line project can be accelerated?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I think that there was a link, minister.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Services from the Borders to Fife will certainly be among the services delivered when we recreate rail in the Borders. Like Mr Purvis's constituents, my constituents have limited access to rail, and I am always anxious to ensure that we improve rail services throughout Scotland.

I hope that the cabinet secretary had an enjoyable evening with Councillor Parker last night. He has not yet reported to me the substance of any conversation that took place.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Is the minister aware of how widely the new timetable from Perth to Edinburgh is welcomed? Does he agree that an enormous improvement has been made for my constituents? Hitherto, they had to put up with appallingly low levels of service. Will he accept my thanks on their behalf for the new service?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It has long been our ambition to improve services to Perth. I am happy that the member, many of her constituents, and people further afield are happy that we have made the changes.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made towards the proposed reopening of the Leven to Thornton rail link. (S3O-5022)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Transport Scotland received the first draft of the Leven to Thornton feasibility study on 23 June 2008, and it is being considered as part of the strategic transport projects review. The review will set out national investment priorities for 2012 to 2022.

We will make an announcement on the STPR later this year. It will set out the Scottish Government's programme of transport interventions that best contribute to our overall purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

The minister will know that the final report on the Leven to Thornton railway will go to the board of SESTRANS—the south-east Scotland transport partnership—next week. Will he seek to convince SESTRANS, which is the regional transport authority, of the importance of the reopening of the line to the people and businesses of Leven?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We are in the fortunate position of having rail still in place, although it might not be fit for purpose. I await the outcome of SESTRANS's deliberations with considerable interest, and I will listen carefully to what it has to say.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the minister agree that the Leven to Thornton link clearly meets the aim of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth to maximise jobs, business, the economy and sustainability with accelerated capital spend? Will he therefore consider every possible option for bringing forward the rail link as part of the Scottish Government's plans to accelerate capital spending, so that Levenmouth and wider Fife can benefit during these difficult economic conditions?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We are certainly aware of the need to support the communities of Levenmouth, where there are areas of significant economic disadvantage. The people in that part of Fife can be assured that the Government takes seriously the need to ensure that they have an equal opportunity to contribute economically and benefit socially from any links that we may be able to bring forward.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it plans to extend the national concessionary fares scheme and to which groups. (S3O-5017)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scotland-wide free bus travel scheme for older and disabled people is currently being reviewed. Consideration will be given to any possible changes—including the proposal to include injured armed forces veterans—once the findings of the review are known. I expect to announce the outcome of the review in the new year.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Does the minister agree that the Scottish Government's clear intention via the review—to extend concessionary fares—should act as a signal to the Labour Party that it is time to stop frightening old people into believing that the national concessionary fares scheme is at risk?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Like many of our other interventions—including the extension of the central heating programme and the numbers of systems installed—the free bus travel scheme will assure people that this Government will step up to and meet its responsibilities to older and disabled people.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Will the minister confirm that eligibility was under consideration but that that changed in early July? Will he also confirm that active consideration was given to the idea of abolishing unlimited free travel and, instead, giving each pass holder a fixed annual value on their smart card? Will he confirm that that idea has now been ruled out?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

No; no; yes.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met NHS Tayside to discuss health provision for Perthshire. (S3O-5049)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

Officials from the Scottish Government health directorates meet NHS Tayside regularly to discuss a wide range of service provision matters, including those affecting Perthshire. I last met the chair of NHS Tayside on Monday at my regular monthly meeting with all national health service board chairs.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Will the cabinet secretary join me in congratulating NHS Tayside on being one of four health boards that have achieved the target for 95 per cent of cancer patients to be treated within the designated waiting time? Does she agree that that is good news for those people in my constituency who, sadly, are diagnosed with cancer? Will she remind us of the previous Administration's record in that regard?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I join Roseanna Cunningham in congratulating NHS Tayside on meeting the 95 per cent target, which is extremely important for everyone who is diagnosed with cancer in Scotland and, of course, their families. Although we are not quite yet meeting the 95 per cent target across all of Scotland, significant progress has been made during the past 18 months.

In response to Roseanna Cunningham's final question, I remind members that although the previous Administration set the target in 2000 it did not get anywhere near 90 per cent—let alone 95 per cent—in seven years. That was a shocking record and one that I am glad that this Administration has improved considerably.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support it is giving to the regeneration and economic development of southern Ayrshire. (S3O-4952)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We place great importance on regeneration and economic development throughout Scotland, including Ayrshire. The Government economic strategy sets out how we will focus on creating a more successful country through increasing sustainable economic growth. The strategy sets out an approach to growth that is cohesive across all Scotland's regions.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

As the minister knows, tourism is a major component of the southern Ayrshire economy and supports thousands of local jobs. That being the case, it is disappointing that all key tourism destinations have been concentrated in and north of the central belt, with no provision being made in the south of Scotland. Will the minister please look favourably on proposals to designate Ayrshire as a key tourism destination?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will indeed. Last night, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth met Hugh Hunter, the leader of South Ayrshire Council, who is also keen to promote tourism destination status. The cabinet secretary volunteered that I am keen—as I am—to meet to explore means to achieve that end.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Does the minister agree that the regeneration of and potential for tourism in south Ayrshire would be enhanced by the construction of a Maybole bypass? Will he work with the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change to ensure that when funds are being allocated for capital projects that worthwhile project is considered at the earliest opportunity?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I understand that the strategic transport projects review will come out towards the end of the year. Meanwhile we are working hard across the area. We have had useful sessions in east Ayrshire and north Ayrshire and I welcome the opportunity to have further sessions in south Ayrshire. Indeed, all the industrial sectors in south Ayrshire—energy, tourism, life sciences, financial services, food and drink and aerospace—have engaged with us during the past year and made, among others, the points that members made.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what level of aviation growth is compatible with its target of 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. (S3O-4961)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

There is no direct relationship between growth in aviation and our 80 per cent emissions reduction target. The target applies across all sectors of the economy and not to individual sectors.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

There is a relationship. We expect the Scottish climate change bill to be introduced next month, and the national planning framework is likely to give the go-ahead for airport expansion at Edinburgh and Glasgow. Given the disproportionate damage that aviation emissions do to the climate, will the minister accept that the Government's objectives are incompatible and do the planet a favour by abandoning airport expansion? Will he use the Scottish climate change bill to set a good example and institute a ban on the public sector's use of domestic flights when alternatives exist?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member will be aware of our keen interest in high-speed rail links, which will make a significant contribution to the reduction of air travel between central Scotland and London. I very much welcome the change in the mood music that is emanating from the Department for Transport in that regard and I hope that the member will work with us to ensure that alternatives to certain aviation routes are in place.

However, aviation remains an important part of Scotland's economy and, like every other contributing part of our economy, deserves support.

First Minister's Question Time

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1215)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today, I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Let me say a word about the atrocity in Mumbai, which we all obviously unite to condemn. There were some indications this morning that employees of Scotland-based companies could have been caught up in the atrocity. I emphasise to members that there has been no confirmation of that. Indeed, at this stage, it may be just that some companies were unable to contact their employees because of the overnight situation.

Officials have been in contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office this morning, and there will be ministerial contact this afternoon. However, I know that members will appreciate that, regardless of the nationality of those caught up in the atrocity, there will almost certainly be Scottish families with close connections to the area. Scottish families will be affected, and I know that members will want to express their solidarity with those families, wherever they come from, and will unite to condemn the atrocity.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister knows that he can count on Labour members' solidarity with those who are caught up in and dealing with the atrocity.

Monday's pre-budget report was described in the media as the biggest budget statement since world war two. All eyes were on it. Is that why the Scottish National Party Government chose to publish on Monday its response to the consultation on Mr Salmond's so-called local income tax? Did the First Minister think that no one would notice?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The consultation exercise was published five hours before the pre-budget report. To be helpful to the Labour Party, we put it as the number 1 item on the Scottish Government website. The people who responded to the consultation were written to individually. However, as the Labour Party, alone among the political parties, did not make a submission to the consultation, it did not get a letter and had to read the website.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister is not normally known for his shyness. He is always happy to turn up to the opening of an envelope or, better still, one of the schools that Labour planned and built. However, when it comes to his Administration's flagship policy, he sneaks it out the back door of Bute house under the cover of darkness and the PBR. Why? Perhaps it is because so many of the organisations that replied to the consultation roundly condemned his tax: the Confederation of British Industry, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Institute of Directors, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, Unison, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, and the Law Society of Scotland.

Let us be fair. Some organisations supported the tax, including Dumfries and Galloway Council's SNP group, East Dunbartonshire Council's SNP group and South Lanarkshire Council's SNP group. Not all those organisations were SNP branches—the Association of Scottish Liberal Democrat Councillors was in there, too.

Will the First Minister listen to his own consultation and dump his discredited tax plan now?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Far be it from me to defend the Association of Scottish Liberal Democrat Councillors, but at least it managed to make a submission.

Iain Gray should not be too dismissive of the details of the consultation because they confirm what every single opinion poll on the matter has confirmed: overwhelming support for a local income tax that is based on the ability to pay over the discredited council tax policy of Labour and the Tories.

Was there another reason why Andy Kerr was unable to make a submission to the consultation? Perhaps it had something to do with Iain Gray's interview in The Sunday Times on 5 October:

"'We don't have our own proposals,' he says candidly. 'We went into the 2007 election with a proposal to try and make the council tax fairer and it didn't add up. Central to our new manifesto is a properly worked out suggestion for how we make the council tax fairer.'"

The interview also states:

"He is not prepared to give any further details of a putative scheme. 'I've always resisted being asked to do that immediately on the back of a fag packet,' he says. 'We made that mistake once before.'"

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister really needs to read his opinion polls and consultations more carefully. He well knows that the most recent opinion poll evidence showed that a minority of Scots supported the local income tax proposal. That is almost exactly what his consultation showed: fewer than half the individual respondents were in favour of a local income tax; and only 34 per cent of the group most likely to be in work—34 to 54-year-olds—supported it, which is not surprising, as it is a tax on work.

On Monday, a Labour chancellor put £2 billion into the pockets of Scotland's working families. On the same day, the SNP Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth insisted that he would go ahead with his plans to take £1.5 billion in extra income tax out of those self-same Scottish pockets. Labour has taken strong, decisive action to put money into the pockets of hard-working Scottish families and to help us weather the global economic storm.

The First Minister talked about a mistake that I said we had made. Alistair Darling made a mistake too on Monday—a mistake on whisky duty—but he fixed it in 48 hours. The First Minister is making a far more damaging mistake with his local income tax. Will he fix his mistake and drop the policy now?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Alistair Darling's somersaults on the whisky tax do not give us much confidence that the pre-budget report was carefully worked out. I welcome the about-turn on the whisky tax, because it might forecast about-turns on other aspects of policy. Iain Gray had better get used to the figure of £500 million. That is the cut—the Labour cut—that is coming to Scottish councils, the Scottish Government and the Scottish people. We are not talking about efficiency savings that councils get to retain for the first time or which health boards can reinvest in front-line services; we are talking about direct cuts in spending coming down the line from the Labour Party. He and his team had better get used to that figure—the £500 million bombshell—because it will haunt each and every Labour MSP from now until the general election.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

That £500 million—it may well be less than that, as we know—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

:—follows naturally from the belt tightening that will happen throughout the United Kingdom, and Scotland must take its share of that. However, the First Minister's local income tax proposals would take £900 million out of the budget in Scotland for no reason whatever.

The First Minister told us his engagements for the rest of the day. We read that his finance secretary will meet the big six business organisations of Scotland this afternoon. They will tell him that no one wants the local income tax. They will plead with him not to make Scotland the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom.

This is a seminal moment for the First Minister. Will he step in, overrule his finance secretary and do what is right for Scotland's economy and working families, or will he continue to put his own party interests before the national interest? Is he First Minister for Scotland, or First Minister for the SNP alone?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will tell Iain Gray who wants a system that is based on the ability to pay: the people of Scotland.

Iain Gray says that he is not quite sure whether the figure is £500 million or not, so I will make a deal with him. I will tell him why we believe that it is £500 million: the Barnett consequentials of the cut in expenditure by Darling, Brown and Murphy are £380 million; and the latest jiggery-pokery with the health budget adds another £129 million. I understand that those figures have been confirmed by David Bell, the adviser to the Finance Committee. That is the £0.5 billion cut that is coming from the Labour Party. Perhaps when Iain Gray gets the time to think about it, he can consult further with Andy Kerr and tell us what he thinks the figure is next week.

There is a tax giveaway next year, followed by spending cuts in 2010. That is a move from John Maynard Keynes to Milton Friedman, with no intervening period whatsoever. It is new Labour to hard labour, and Iain Gray had better get used to it, because it will undermine and hole below the waterline his entire political attack. In a phrase, "You're sunk."

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S3F-1216)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the Prime Minister in the near future, but I will be delighted to ask for an urgent meeting with him to find out whether he can estimate the figure for the cuts and say whether it is £500 million or some other amount.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Iain Gray is absolutely right to condemn the SNP's local income tax. Unfortunately for Iain Gray, however, he is the man with no plan; he is stuck in the past with the local government finance status quo.

The First Minister's tax on jobs—that is what the local income tax is—is based on three things: a growing economy; a tax rate of 3p in the pound; and a £281 million subsidy. However, we know from this week's devastating and bleak news that those assumptions have been smashed to smithereens. The black hole has more than doubled in size. Can he tell us where he will find the money to plug that bigger black hole of £300 million? If he cannot—I would be astonished if he could—I ask him to come clean: how much will the new tax rate really be? How much higher will it be than 3p in the pound?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I direct Annabel Goldie to the pre-budget report, and I remind her that the implementation date for the local income tax is 2011-12, not 2010-11. That is significant, because the pre-budget report gives a significant increase in projected taxation revenue for that year.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

You do not believe that, do you?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

David McLetchie says that I should not believe that. It is probably true that Alistair Darling is the Eddie the Eagle of tax forecasters at the moment, but that is precisely the premise of Mr McLetchie's leader's question, so I am answering it on that basis.

There are two other factors to consider: the impact of the recession on projected council tax revenue; and the council tax rebate—the help that should come from Westminster. Will Annabel Goldie confirm the comments of David Mundell, who said that the Conservative party had no plans to obstruct the implementation of a fairer tax system by withholding Scotland's money?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The First Minister is either deluding himself or conning the public, because even in his own Government, no one has disputed the existence of the burgeoning black hole. For the First Minister's sums to add up, a 25 per cent increase in income tax revenues would be needed in just one year. That is not going to happen—it is total self-delusion.

Britain already faces a tax bombshell from Labour. Now Scotland is going to get an additional tartan tax bombshell from the SNP. There we have it—Brown and Salmond, the architects of insolvency. Gordon Brown has broken Britain's economy. Why does Alex Salmond want to shatter Scotland's? Will he drop the proposed tax on work and cut council tax instead?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Annabel Goldie should know that the pre-budget report actually projects an 18 per cent increase in income tax revenue over that year. If she goes with the pre-budget report figures, she must be able to analyse them and should not deduct a year from her forecast.

Let us be clear. Annabel Goldie and her press officer's statements assume that the withholding of council tax benefit will continue under the next Government. Is she assuming that the Labour Party will still be in Government, or that any party at Westminster will defy the clearly expressed will of the Scottish Parliament on the matter? Clarity on that subject would be useful.

I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Given that David Cameron stood in the House of Commons on Monday and extolled the virtues of a council tax freeze, saying that such a freeze was important in restoring the economy, will Annabel Goldie follow the line of her leader at Westminster and compliment and continue to support the Government when we give help to hard-pressed families?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Questions should be to the First Minister, not from him.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There is nothing like a late convert to the cause. I distinctly recall challenging the First Minister, in the chamber, on council tax. I asked, "Is a freeze enough?" and he said, "No." Let us hear how he is going to cut council tax.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Of course the freeze is not enough. That is why we are working so hard to help hard-pressed families and businesses with the range of things that John Swinney announced. Let us remember that we need a council tax freeze because of the 40 per cent increase in council tax under the Tories and, over 10 years, a further 60 per cent increase. Labour and the Tories are an unholy alliance—they are the unheavenly twins of the council tax. Annabel Goldie lacks credibility on the issue.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1217)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

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

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth's budget statement yesterday contained 2,000 words. How many new proposals did the Government reveal?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The six-point plan has a range of new proposals to help the Scottish economy at this particular moment. The range of proposals includes, for example, the acceleration of housing investment long before it was thought of by the Government at Westminster, and detailed proposals across the Scottish Government's range of activities. That is effective action to combat the downturn in Downing Street, effective action to help Scottish families, and effective action from John Swinney on the Scottish economy.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

That was certainly a new definition of "new". The £25 million for council housing was announced in April and the £100 million for housing was announced in August—of course, we now know that only £9 million of that is already committed. We have heard it all before. The list is not new and it has not changed. It is all out of date.

At such a time, the test of a Government is its plan B—its ideas and its competence in dealing with change. We need change to deal with unemployment, which is up by 13,000, change to deal with mortgage lending, which is down by 20 per cent, and change to deal with the tens of thousands of banking jobs that the United Kingdom Government put at risk over HBOS.

What will it take for the First Minister to grasp his budget and change it to respond to the urgent needs that Scotland faces right now? How much worse does it need to get?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Tavish Scott is out of date on that and so much more. The next tranche of £9 million of housing investment was announced this very morning. He needs to catch up. [ Interruption. ] Of course, that is in addition to the genuine acceleration of regional development money during the period—the acceleration of the rural development programme.

When Tavish Scott was busy opposing the budget last spring, did he countenance the fact that measures in it such as the council tax freeze—which I think he opposed—and the benefit to small business through the small business programme were exactly the sort of measures that anticipated the downturn in the economy? [Interruption.] I see Mike Rumbles rumbling. I say to Mr Rumbles that there must be a reason why Scottish consumer spending is holding up better than consumer spending in the rest of the United Kingdom. Might that be something to do with the council tax freeze in Scotland, rather than the council tax increases that Liberal Democrats voted for?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

As Tavish Scott has been asked a question, I will give him a final supplementary.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

From what I remember, the council tax policy was announced in 2006. At that time not even Prophet Salmond would have been able to work out that a recession was going to happen. The country wants to hear what he is going to do now, not what he did two years ago, so let us have some answers.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have never underestimated the capacity of a Labour Government to make a mess of the economy. I should also point out that my question was addressed not to Tavish Scott but to Mike Rumbles—the lost leader sitting beside him.

My question to the Liberal Democrats remains: given what we now know, will they oppose the council tax freeze for next year or will they try once again to tax hard-working families in Scotland? [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister, after the launch of "Achieving Our Potential", the Scottish Government's framework on tackling poverty and income inequality, what plans there are to work with the United Kingdom Government on the anti-poverty agenda. (S3F-1240)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Following the launch of "Achieving Our Potential", we will continue and build on the work that we are engaged in with the UK Government on the anti-poverty agenda. Today, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning is meeting the UK Minister of State for Employment and Welfare Reform to discuss the welfare reform proposals from the Department for Work and Pensions. We are pushing the UK Government to recognise the different circumstances in Scotland and are far from convinced that placing additional conditions on vulnerable people who are in receipt of benefits will either help to get them back into sustainable work or tackle poverty in Scotland in the current economic conditions.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I know that income maximisation is a key part of the Scottish Government's framework for tackling poverty, and its new energy assistance package to tackle fuel poverty includes at stage 2 a good-quality benefits and tax credits check to ensure such maximisation. However, I am worried that, in cash terms, the UK Government is not as committed as the Scottish Government is to tackling fuel poverty. Will the First Minister commit to working with the UK Government on this matter and to ensuring that Scotland gets every single penny of the renewables obligations and carbon emission reduction targets cash that it is due?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, we will continue to work with the UK Government on this important issue.

I saw quizzical looks on some Labour MSPs' faces when Bob Doris mentioned cuts in the fuel poverty budget elsewhere. The fact is that buried in the pre-budget report is a slashing of the fuel poverty programme. As a percentage of resources committed to fuel poverty, the Scottish contribution in 2008-09 is 14 per cent of the warm front budget; according to current projections here and in the UK, by 2010-11 the contribution will have risen to 28 per cent because of the slashing of fuel poverty programmes in the pre-budget report.

George (Labour, Lothians)

Go down to the House of Commons and tell them that.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Lord Foulkes, please be quiet.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Does the First Minister think that it helps the battle against poverty and inequality for 40 per cent to be cut from the budgets of a large number of well-established projects in north Edinburgh that are supported by the Scottish Government's fairer Scotland fund? At a meeting of local activists that I attended this morning, one well-respected activist said that the work and developments of 30 years had been undone in just 18 months. Will the First Minister speak urgently to his colleagues in the SNP coalition administration in the City of Edinburgh Council so that they take action to stop that carnage?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The fairer Scotland fund amounts to £435 million over the three-year period. Moreover, for the first time, we have direct funding for third sector organisations.

I draw Malcolm Chisholm's attention to a quote about the pressures on local government. Yesterday, a representative of local government spoke about the financial pressures that it is currently under—the squeeze, as it has been called. A prominent leader of local government, looking at the pre-budget report, said:

"It means rises in bills for council taxpayers and leaves huge pressure on services".

That was Margaret Eaton, the chairman of the Local Government Association in England.

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

Last week, the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee heard evidence on the measure to provide free school meals for middle-class families, which we will debate later. The Minister for Children and Early Years was asked how many additional children would be lifted out of poverty by the measure. He asked his official to reply, and the official said:

"We will need to do some more number crunching and to get back to the member on the issue."—[Official Report, Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee, 19 November 2008; c 1691.]

Will the Government publish a clear demonstration of how the £40 million policy will lift additional children out of poverty?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, we will. The pilot exercise shows that the policy will lift additional children out of poverty. The policy is not—as the member so disparagingly puts it—for middle-class families; it will increase the uptake of free school meals among those who are entitled to them because it will remove the stigma. I do not know how much understanding the member has of working-class families, but he should look at the pilot study and the increase in the uptake of free school meals and stop trying to take food out of the mouths of children in Scotland.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government intends to respond to official figures showing an increase in child protection referrals, including for unborn babies. (S3F-1237)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The increase in child protection referrals is a sign that more children who are at risk of harm are receiving the help and support that they need before a crisis is reached. Midwives are increasingly important in supporting vulnerable pregnant women and their unborn babies and in referring vulnerable newborns forward for multi-agency discussion. Additional support is then provided for the mother and child, as necessary.

We are developing an early years early intervention framework for pre-conception to age eight, which we intend to publish imminently. The framework will shift services away from crisis intervention to prevention and early intervention. The aim is to identify risks as early as possible and to put in place effective supports and interventions to improve outcomes from pregnancy onwards. The framework will also set out the role of intensive family support services for those children and families who face a particularly high risk.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I hope that that early years strategy will be forthcoming. Ministers have been saying "soon" for several months. I hope that it will be published before Christmas.

What modelling work is the Government undertaking to project the number of children who will be the subject of child protection referrals in the future? What plans does the Government have to resource and put in place the much-needed services that will support those children now and prevent further increases in the future?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

That information informs the framework, which will, indeed, be published soon.

I welcome the fact that, although the overall number of child protection referrals has gone up substantially this year to 12,400, the number of children who have been placed on the child protection register has fallen by 10 per cent. It is reasonable to argue that the fall in the number of children who have been placed on the child protection register provides early evidence that early interventions are starting to have a positive impact on the lives of vulnerable children. I know that, given her interest in the matter, Karen Whitefield will welcome that.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the First Minister share the concerns that were expressed today by Alan Baird, the president of the Association of Directors of Social Work in Scotland, that the vilification of social workers in some sections of the press, following the Baby P case in London, is undermining front-line social services staff? Does he acknowledge the need for not just social workers, but all professionals who work with children and families to focus on the welfare of the child at all times, notwithstanding the different approaches to child protection that are taken north and south of the border?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I do. A tragedy such as the Baby P case always makes people, rightly, want to focus on the unacceptability of the case. However, when people identify the faults and failings that took place, it is important that they are careful not to generalise about the entire workforce in the social work sector. Those who work in child protection in Scotland do a fantastic job. They are highly qualified and motivated professionals, and they should not be the subject of a general attack because of an individual incident—tragic though it was—in one council area.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had on the future of the forestry sector. (S3F-1219)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The Minister for Environment met leading forest industry representatives earlier this month to discuss the impact of the current economic situation on the sector. The Forestry Commission Scotland is now working with the industry to agree a range of measures to help ease the pressure on hard-pressed businesses. Those measures will be announced shortly.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish Conservatives have long argued that the private sector has a big part to play in ensuring that Scotland has a dynamic forestry sector. Therefore, we welcome the Government's plans to consider leasing off around 25 per cent of forests. That said, we recognise the legitimate concerns that exist among Forestry Commission staff in Scotland. Will the First Minister state clearly today that, if his Government goes ahead with the proposal, he will guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies, that the terms and conditions of transferred workers will remain the same, and that current arrangements for access to Scotland's forests will remain in force?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes. That is what the Minister for Environment is working towards.

Jamie McGrigor has put his finger on what people's concerns might be. However, if it is possible to protect access, employment and training rights and to generate significant and badly needed investment in the forestry sector, those would surely be good things to do. The purpose of the consultation is to ascertain what can be done in that regard and to get people's opinions in. Jamie McGrigor has identified the key issues that people must be reassured about if the policy is to move forward.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

In the current economic climate, how can giving away the most commercially successful parts of our forests be good news for skilled jobs and our fragile rural communities? Is this not all about short-term cash for the Government at the expense of access, biodiversity and vital income for the next 18 Scottish Governments?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

This is not the selling-off of anything; it is an attempt to get more investment, with guarantees, into the forestry sector, which badly needs it.

I do not know whether Sarah Boyack has had time to read the full pre-budget report documents. If she reads them, she will see that

"Departments are also working to achieve efficiencies on other Government assets",

and that

"a study of the Forestry Commission's portfolio in England is being launched to examine options for delivery of public value from the estate in the long term".

Before there is scaremongering from the Labour Party on this issue, Sarah Boyack should address not only the £500 million of cuts and the slashing of the fuel poverty programme but what the pre-budget report has to say about English forestry.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. According to the standing orders, members are required to be courteous to one another in the chamber. I and other back benchers believe that it is completely discourteous for front benchers to dominate a session that is supposed to be a calling to account of front benchers by the back-bench members of the Parliament.

Presiding Officer, I suggest that you enlist the services of some back benchers to discuss with you and the party managers and leaders how we might best recalibrate the question time sessions in the interests of all members.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I do not accept that the issue is a matter of courtesy; I think that it is a matter of procedure. As I intimated last week, I am considering the procedure, and I will continue to do so.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Education and Lifelong Learning

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what it is doing to support science education. (S3O-4962)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Government is fully committed to supporting science education. That is being addressed through the curriculum for excellence, the Scottish science baccalaureate and the new science framework that I announced to Parliament this morning.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

My question is on an issue that was not covered in this morning's statement. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the controversy that broke out in the Royal Society in recent months over calls to allow the teaching of creationism within the science curriculum in England and Wales. What is the Scottish Government's position? Should Scottish schools be actively challenging absurd, superstitious notions such as creationism and intelligent design?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Scottish schools and the Scottish Government would challenge creationism if it were taught in our schools. However, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education reports that no schools in Scotland currently conduct education on creationism.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Earlier, the minister announced details of the science baccalaureate. She did not answer my question then, so perhaps she will have another go at answering. Is she aware that there is grave concern about the science baccalaureate among teachers, headteachers, parents and university staff? Will she agree to publish the evidence that there is demand for the proposed change?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am certainly prepared to publish the support that we have for the proposal. The member's concern is misplaced and she exaggerates in saying that there are grave concerns. I think that stretching our most able pupils will be welcomed. Many parents and secondary 6 pupils report to me that pupils drift through S6 if they have already been successful in their application for university. We need to challenge our brightest and best if we are to capitalise on science in the future as we take ourselves through the economic downturn.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what support and funding it is providing to small businesses to assist them in training their staff. (S3O-5001)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Through Skills Development Scotland, we provide support for learning and skills development in small businesses. Sector skills councils also play an active role in assessing skills and training needs and in influencing education and training provision to ensure that those needs are met.

We offer support to small businesses as part of the learndirect Scotland for business programme, which acts as a broker in matching the learning needs of businesses to appropriate solutions. In addition, in the Scottish Enterprise area, help and support are available through the Investors in People improvement programme, which is structured to allow businesses to use it in a way that suits them best, with a mix of approaches that is tailored to business needs, such as one-to-one services, workshops or the bespoke IIP interactive online tool.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

Does the minister agree that small businesses, including hauliers, are vital to the Scottish economy? The United Kingdom Government has provided £350 million for their training needs. What is the Scottish Government doing?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government intervenes in skills in a number of ways through Skills Development Scotland, which came out of the skills strategy. If Ms Peattie writes to me on her specific point about hauliers and transport firms, I will see what I can do.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

One of the main problems for small businesses is their lack of capacity to let staff off site for training. Might the Government think about creating a web-based training programme so that people could receive some basic training on site without the business needing to close down while they are away?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The member makes a fair point. The Scottish Government supports the use of web-based training and e-learning where appropriate. We encourage all businesses that face the challenge that the member mentions to contact their respective sector skills councils and Skills Development Scotland to identify innovative work-based interventions. We realise that small businesses need more bite-sized courses than full-blown programmes.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met officials from Scottish Borders Council's education department. (S3O-4956)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Minister for Schools and Skills and I met Scottish Borders Council on 27 August 2008. Officials from the Scottish Government met Scottish Borders Council's director for education and lifelong learning on 18 October 2008 while on a routine visit to the local authority.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The minister is aware that Scottish Borders Council will shortly consider whether to adopt the recommendations contained in its "Transforming Children's Services" report, which, among other things, could see a number of schools being forced to share headteachers. I do not expect the minister to comment on specific proposals, but will he reassure me, teaching staff and parents that the Government will not allow Scottish Borders Council to implement any proposals that could adversely affect the education of young people in the Borders?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As the member ought to know, Scottish Borders Council's education budget will increase by 3.2 per cent from £89.3 million this year to £97.8 million next year. Funding pressures are not a problem for the "Transforming Children's Services" project.

As the member rightly says, the provision of education in Scotland is the responsibility of the appropriate local authority, so it is for Scottish Borders Council to determine how it allocates its resources and co-ordinates its children's services delivery. However, I note that Scottish Borders Council issued a news release on 4 November stating that it had

"received several hundred responses to the 19-week consultation on its Transforming Children's Services review"

and that it has postponed a meeting from 20 November to 18 December so that it can fully assess those responses. I also note that the director of social work is on record as saying:

"We are very mindful of the central place that children have in the life of the Borders and the responses, both written and verbal, have fully justified the extended consultation on this important review."

It would not be appropriate for me to comment any further than that.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what initiatives are taking place to reduce bullying in the school environment. (S3O-5033)

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The Scottish Government supports all those who work directly with children and young people to prevent and tackle bullying effectively. We provide that support in various ways. We wholly fund respectme, Scotland's anti-bullying service, which provides advice, information, resources, support and training to develop, refresh and support the implementation of anti-bullying policies in schools, local authorities and communities, and to build capacity to prevent and deal effectively with bullying. We also provide funding of £160,000 per year for three years to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children for the ChildLine bullying helpline that helps children who are directly affected by bullying.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister regularly review the anti-bullying strategies that are operated by schools, education departments and local authorities to ensure that no one in the school environment is subjected to bullying behaviour, whether they be pupils or staff, particularly those children who are on the autistic spectrum, and other children who are vulnerable?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

All bullying, wherever it happens, is unacceptable and must be tackled. Bullying is not, and should never be seen as, a normal part of growing up. The Government is committed to tackling and preventing bullying.

Last Monday, I launched Scotland's anti-bullying week and respectme's awareness-raising campaign, which is called you can make a difference. One of the prize-winners in the special schools category was a severely autistic girl, and the audience was extremely supportive. Where children are made aware of anti-bullying when we raise awareness throughout the school and community, we can deal effectively with bullying of any sort.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Does the minister believe that the cuts in pupil support that have taken place in local authorities around the country have helped or hindered her anti-bullying strategy? How many anti-bullying initiatives have local authorities ended and how many have they initiated since the concordat was signed?