Fishing and Seafood Sector Strategy
Tuesday, 10 November 2026
Contributions
[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair ]
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)Conservative
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Before I call Daniel Zeichner to move the motion, it may be convenient for everybody to know that we appear to have, in addition to the mover, seven Back-Bench contributors and a couple of Members who I know wish to intervene. I am not going to impose a time limit at this stage. It rather depends on how long Mr Zeichner chooses to speak for, but I think we are probably looking at around a maximum of seven minutes per person. On that basis, we ought to be able to get everybody in. If that changes, I will let Members know.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)Labour
I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of a fishing and seafood sector strategy. It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. It is also a pleasure to lead a debate on this important question. Before I begin, I should declare that I served as the independent chair of the process that produced “An Action Plan for a Thriving and Sustainable UK Fishing Industry”, a weighty tome recently published by the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, which is the stimulus for this debate. I pay tribute to the group’s co-chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), for their leadership on that piece of work. I also thank the many fishermen and women and other stakeholders from across the UK who gave evidence to the all-party group’s process. I also pay particular tribute to Mike Cohen and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations for having pursued me on this policy idea for many years, and to Lia ní Aodha and her team, who did so much of the basic research, organising and drafting. I note that it is almost exactly five years ago to the day—somewhat to my overnight surprise—that I found myself in this very Chamber as the shadow Fisheries Minister speaking for the Opposition, a job I hugely enjoyed both in opposition and as a Minister, not least because I met and got to know so many very special people and enjoyed many debates with many familiar friends who are in this Chamber today. I am delighted to see the very wide range of geographical and political representation in the Chamber today. As an island nation, no part of the United Kingdom is more than 70 miles from the sea, yet we sometimes display a rather curious lack of awareness of the sea and, at times, a tendency to undervalue the waters around us and the people and communities who depend upon them. Fishing and seafood are a case in point. They are a comparatively modest line in the national accounts, it is true, but it is a sector whose value is woven into the identity of places such as Brixham, Grimsby, Kilkeel, Milford Haven, Peterhead and Shetland, and whose true value must be measured in the good jobs and vibrant communities it sustains around our coasts and islands, the regional economies that it supports, the nutritious, low-carbon food it puts on plates at home and around the world, and its contribution to national resilience—something we have heard much about in recent times. Since leaving the common fisheries policy, the UK has built an impressive domestic management framework centred on the Fisheries Act 2020, the joint fisheries statement and a suite of fisheries management plans. As an independent coastal state, we have regulatory autonomy and the resources for a thriving industry, including fishing knowledge, productive waters off our coast and a still vibrant and diverse fishing sector. However, during my time as Minister, I was struck by the fact that we do not have a strategy that brings those together and connects fisheries management with the wider decisions on energy, marine space, skills, trade and food that will shape the sector’s future. That gap is felt by those who fish every day as they face rising operating and fuel costs, stocks shifting under climate change, growing competition for space at sea from offshore energy development, the expansion of marine protected areas, and difficulties in recruiting and retaining skilled crews. Many of those pressures are also felt downstream by processes around our coasts.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)Liberal Democrat
Following the closure of the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland, most fishing vessels on the east coast— right the length of Scotland—are having to go to Immingham, which is much further south. I believe that will have a knock-on effect on the costs to fisheries and indeed on those communities. I do not ask for an instant solution to that, but does the hon. Member agree that it could be a problem and that we should probably look at it?
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, not least because it raises the question of fuel, which is a serious issue for the industry at the moment, although today’s debate is about longer-term issues. He also makes an important point about the knock-on effects of something that is possibly the responsibility of other Government Departments. It will be part of my case that we need to see those issues as a whole. During the all-party group’s inquiry, we heard all the pressures I have just described reflected back to us by industries in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Some call it death by a thousand cuts. The consequence of a fragmented policy landscape and the absence of a strategic view for the sector—those challenges will be familiar to anyone who has spoken to people on the ground in coastal and island communities. I am convinced that, as the all-party group concluded, addressing those challenges requires a coherent, joined-up response from the Government. That is why the action plan centres on a foundational recommendation that asks the Government to set out a long-term strategy for UK fishing and the wider seafood sector within the next 12 months, as part of the sustainable ocean plan that they have committed to delivering next year.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)Liberal Democrat
As co-author of the report, the fact that I agree with the hon. Member might possibly qualify as the least surprising news of today—the need for that strategy is becoming more urgent. However, there are other things that could be done much more quickly though. One is to include food and drink in the industrial strategy, which of course is not the Minister’s responsibility—it relates to another Department. If food and drink had been in that industrial strategy, the energy spike that is currently hitting processors would be dealt with by assistance from the Government. Does he agree that a lot of the answers lie with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but not all of them?
As ever, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and always asks insightful questions. I can assure him there was quite a debate about whether to include food in the industrial strategy. Of course, there are wider consequences and costs to including it. I am no longer in a position to comment on the Government’s perspective, but I am sure the Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point. To shape the strategy, the report proposes four pillars: sustainable management and access to space and quota; fleet modernisation, infrastructure and technology; workforce and labour; and supply chains and domestic consumption, underpinned by measures relating to governance, science, funding and the sector’s social licence. The strategy is set out across 38 separate recommendations. You will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go through them, Sir Roger, but I will make some brief observations on the merits of that strategy through the lens of food. As we are all repeating these days, food security is national security, and on an island that surely must be as true at sea as it is on land. After all, fishing is fundamentally about food production. I will take three aspects of this in turn: food security, health and climate. First, on food security, I do not represent a fishing constituency, but like all constituents, mine eat fish—although probably not as much as they should. What struck me throughout the process, and during my time as Minister and shadow Minister, was how disconnected the fish on our plates has become from the boats that catch it. According to the most recent figures, 461,000 tonnes of fish and shellfish were landed into UK ports in 2025. At the same time, we imported more than 1.1 million tonnes of seafood, while UK consumers purchased more than 411,000 tonnes of seafood in retail outlets. It is true that we export much of what we catch and import much of what we eat. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; it is part of the reality of a rather remarkable food system. We heard in our inquiry that both are key to the UK’s diverse seafood economy, and in normal times that serves us well. From the pandemic to the war in Ukraine and instability in the middle east, we have recently learned just how fragile supply chains can be. We also know that supply chains will be strained further by climate change and biodiversity loss. In those moments, a diverse domestic fleet and onshore processing capacity are strategic assets—a source of food that can be redirected to our own tables when supply chains are under pressure. However, in the UK, fishing and seafood all too often remain on the periphery of how we think about food security and resilience. Too often, they are absent from the discussion. We have no headline measure of how self-sufficient we are in seafood, and we continue to fail to connect the role of sustainable fisheries to our resilience planning. It is so frustrating to see an indigenous food-producing industry remain on the edges of those conversations. That is why the action plan recommends that seafood should be fully represented in food security assessments, so that we understand how domestic fisheries can help the food system absorb shocks now and in the future. Alongside that, it recommends measurable targets for seafood supply, consumption and the sector’s contribution to food security. I am very grateful to Dr Sarah Coulthard from Newcastle University for her work on small-scale fisheries, the inshore fleet and their contribution to our food security. Secondly, on health—for food is also about health—sustainable seafood has a lot to offer towards a healthier nation. The NHS recommends at least two portions of fish a week, one of them oily. However, the average person in the UK eats around half that. The gap is widest among children and lower-income households—the very people who stand to benefit most from seafood nutrition. A strategy for fishing and seafood should set out practical steps to address that, including a sustained two-a-week campaign run with the NHS, better food environments and public procurement—a lever that the Government control directly. After all, a healthier population is ultimately a lower burden on the health service. Thirdly, on climate, well-managed, wild-caught seafood offers a relatively low-carbon form of animal protein. It needs no feed, no fertiliser and no land. Emissions from fuel use across the entire UK fishing fleet account for around 0.12% of the UK’s territorial emissions, and about 1.1% of those from agriculture. If fishing is to play its full part in climate action, however, we have to be honest about the current state of play. Parts of the fleet are ageing; some boats are around 60 years old. Many want to modernise, but few can afford to. Vessel construction and operating costs have risen sharply, and smaller operators struggle to access affordable finance. There are no off-the-shelf net zero solutions for fishing vessels. That is why the action plan calls for a programme of demonstrator vessels and research into alternative fuels to build evidence and de-risk investment, and for a national assessment of harbour and shoreside infrastructure needs, including readiness for decarbonisation. The industry is working hard to meet its sustainability obligations, but if we expect it to succeed, including on decarbonisation, we must help it to meet the costs of getting there. Investment via the fishing and coastal growth fund is welcome, and the strategy could help to guide where that money goes so that it can effectively support the industry and the wider sector. As I have already suggested, none of this sits neatly in one Department. Food security sits with DEFRA; health with the Department of Health and Social Care; energy and net zero with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; procurement right across Government; crew visas with the Home Office; trade with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade; and fisheries management itself spans three devolved Governments, and so on.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)Labour
My hon. Friend mentioned the devolved Governments. Does he recognise the potential role that the single foundation strategic authority of Cornwall can play, together with our local Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation, in deploying that funding in a much more targeted and localised way?
The work of the CFPO is truly inspirational for much of the sector. My hon. Friend’s point about the possibilities of devolving decision making feeds into the wider discussion around devolution at the moment. I think we may need to revisit regional levels of intervention, because that might be the right level at which to do it. To go back to the Government Departments—I wish the Minister luck with this—each decision made across those spaces may be sensible on its own terms, but when they fail to join up, the sector feels the consequences cumulatively, however unintentional they may be. That is precisely why the sector needs a strategy. There is more to be said, but I suspect that many hon. Members will raise the issues facing their own constituencies. I hope that the Minister will take from my contribution a sense of the value of fishing and seafood to the nation, and of the need for a strategic view to secure the sector’s national benefit. I was very grateful that he attended the launch of the action plan a few weeks ago and engaged and responded with such grace. I know full well the constraints that he faces, but I will ask him for some assurances. First, will the Government commit to publishing a long-term strategy for fishing in the wider seafood sector when resources and time allow? Secondly, will that strategy form part of the sustainable ocean plan that the Government have committed to developing next year? Thirdly, how will the Government work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the strategy is backed across all four nations and delivered on the ground? Fourthly, will the Minister provide a written response to the APPG’s 38 recommendations and meet the APPG to discuss them in depth? In conclusion, I thank everyone involved in the production of the report, and am grateful for the good will shown by people across the industry and beyond. On a personal note, I thank the brilliant officials I had the good fortune of working with at DEFRA, particularly the highly knowledgeable Anne Freeman. I also thank my friend Terri Portmann from Plymouth, who has helped me throughout these five fascinating years. This industry inspires great passion and commitment, and rightly so. It deserves the strategy that it seeks.
Order. Before we proceed, I should say that Mr Shannon has courteously informed me that, owing to a change in business in the House, he is required in a Committee elsewhere and is double-booked, as is so often the case. I am going to call Mr Shannon and then allow him to leave, on the strict understanding that he returns as swiftly as possible and, in any event, is back for the winding-up speeches.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)Democratic Unionist Party
You are most kind, Sir Roger—thank you very much. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for raising this vital issue. The Northern Ireland fisheries industry, which is critical to the wellbeing of our coastal communities, contributed to the groundbreaking road map that the hon. Member for Cambridge referred to, and it welcomed the opportunity to do so. The hon. Gentleman had the good fortune to come to my Strangford constituency and visit Portavogie, where he was well received. How good was his visit? Well, the people of the fishing sector in Portavogie still say what a pleasure it was to have him there. They often reminisce and tell me how good it was to see him. I am sure that when the Minister comes over, he will be more than welcome, and maybe he will get the same accolades after his visit. I have said on several occasions that the Northern Ireland fishing sector has been facing a perfect storm of crewing issues, fuel prices, spatial squeeze and restrictions on access to Isle of Man waters, to name a few of the major and existential challenges they face. It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place, and I wish him well in his role. I have also highlighted, on behalf of the sector, the fragmented governance and a legislative framework that—I say this with great respect—is increasingly out of step with the operational reality of fishing businesses, creating further challenges. The action plan recognises the issues and refers to fleet modernisation, to infrastructure and technology, to workforce and labour, and to supply chains and domestic consumption, as the hon. Gentleman clearly laid out. It has been a huge task to set out a road map that addresses the complexity of UK fisheries while navigating the realities of a devolved fisheries landscape. It is crucial for the survival of the industry that the action plan is turned into meaningful delivery. Of particular interest to the Northern Irish industry are a number of recommendations that speak to the multiple threats it currently faces. The hon. Gentleman referred recommendation 12 of the report, on sustainable management and access to space, which goes to the heart of the issues in respect of marine spatial squeeze. The report calls for the value of food production from fishing to be weighed equally against other uses of marine space, with cumulative displacement effects assessed properly and a formal statutory route established for the industry. I often say—and I stand by this—that fishermen are the original stakeholders in our seas. They feel increasingly that their rights are being ignored and eroded, so we are here to speak up for our fishing sector. As well as Portavogie in my constituency, I speak for Ardglass and for Kilkeel—the hon. Member for that constituency does not come here to speak for them, so I am happy to speak up for them in his absence. On fleet modernisation, recommendation 16 calls for a “more enabling, outcome-focused approach to gear trials”. Where have we been in Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland industry has been leading the way on gear trials over many years, and needs support to turn innovation into reality. The Minister will find a sector in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel in Northern Ireland very willing to work alongside him to do so. Recommendation 17 calls for a “dedicated, purpose-built immigration route”. This is my big ask, and I know it is an ask of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) as well. The recommendation demands that a “short-term bridging solution” be implemented before the current skilled worker visa eligibility for fishing roles disappears at the end of 2026. Time is of the essence; we put that on the record, ask for the Minister’s intervention and hope for his support. The immigration salary list, the mechanism that currently keeps fishing crew roles accessible under the skilled worker route, is due to be abolished. As the report says, the deadline is not abstract: the fishing industry is facing an imminent recruitment cliff edge. That is my biggest ask of all the recommendations.
We all know that the use of migrant labour should be a short to medium-term measure until we are able to grow the workforce in our own ports. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that truth reinforces the importance of the strategy that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) has spoken about, because in order to grow that workforce, signals have to be sent to the industry that the Government have a clear vision of what is expected of them? Unless and until we do that, we will not persuade the next generation to go to sea.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the knowledge he brings to the debate. The Minister is listening intently, and hopefully he will respond to that in a positive way. The Minister should be aware, if he is not already, that we are looking for visas for seasonal workers for nine months. In other words, the people who get them go back home again—they are not staying here. The Department has in place a system, through the seasonal worker programme, for other sectors; that is an issue we could probably look into. The funding and investment section of the road map calls on the Government to treat the current acute cost pressures facing the sector as a matter of immediate urgency. It calls on them to allow the industry to access the same energy cost support that is already available to other sectors of the economy. Northern Ireland fishing boats are being forced to tie up due to the ongoing high costs of fuel, which have persisted since March 2026. What annoys us is that Republic of Ireland and EU companies are already getting fuel support from their countries, creating an unfair competitive advantage over those in other jurisdictions.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)Conservative
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) hinted that fuel is not really something that matters in the longer term, as though it is a short-term problem that will be fixed, but if it is not fixed in the short term, the fishing industry has no long term. Boats are tied up right now. They are losing money now. In my area, Dumfries and Galloway, fishing is largely off-quota or non-quota fishing, and the No. 1 problem right now is the astronomical cost of fuel.
I thank the hon. Member; I am conscious of the time, so I will bring my comments to a conclusion. The fishing sector has long called for a national fishing strategy and is ready to work with the Government to achieve this, as it has demonstrated through the development of the action plan, which is a good blueprint for the way forward. Nothing in the plan requires new powers or legislation, but it needs support from across Westminster—a range of Government Departments have a stake in fishing, including the Home Office in respect of crewing, which we are very interested in, and the Department for Transport in respect of safety—and the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as industry across the UK. If we work together, the action plan could create the opportunity that secures the future of UK fishing. I will be backing our fishing industry in Northern Ireland and throughout the UK by supporting the plan and calling for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland fishing and seafood strategy to be a key part of that.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)Labour
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing the debate. As a former Fisheries Minister and independent chair of the APPG, he knows that a fishing and seafood strategy is much needed given the critical state of the UK’s fish stock. If fish stocks deplete further, the implications for small, sustainable UK fisheries, and for our supply chains, will be significant. These are concerns that the APPG for the ocean, which I chair, has heard for years. I want to highlight two themes. First—this might seem like an obvious point, but it is often missing from the discussion—we cannot have a thriving fishing industry without abundant fish stocks. There have been many debates in this place that frame the UK’s food security as a purely terrestrial issue, but in an uncertain global context marked by supply chain disruption, rising food prices and geopolitical instability, strengthening our domestic food security will be essential to the UK’s long-term resilience. As an island nation, that needs to include fisheries. We face fish shortages that are a huge threat to the security of our fishing industry. A recent Blue Marine Foundation report found that 62% of the 55 fish stocks assessed declined between 2016 and 2025, with 38% falling below the minimum level required by law. Some declines have been extraordinary: Celtic sea cod declined by 98%, while Irish sea plaice declined by 88%. The Government have repeatedly missed deadlines to achieve good environmental status in our seas. Only two of 15 key indicators of healthy seas have been met in UK waters, and over half of assessed fish stocks are not meeting their current recovery targets. Oceana UK found that 25% of UK commercial fishing populations are being over-exploited. Fewer fish will ultimately mean fewer opportunities for our fishers, less resilient coastal economies and a less secure domestic food supply. I welcome the Government’s announcement yesterday that remote electronic monitoring will be legally required on all large pelagic fishing vessels, as the APPG for the ocean called for. That will give us a better idea of what fishing activity is happening, but it will not prevent fishing from exceeding the advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Its scientific recommendations should be treated as a ceiling, not a target, with additional safeguards for depleted stocks. Fish stock recovery must be at the heart of our approach to food security and fisheries policy. If we want the fishing sector to endure for future generations, we must ensure that there are fish left to catch and follow the science to make that happen. The Government are currently negotiating with the EU, Norway and other coastal states to determine jointly managed fish stocks for 2027. Yet in 2026, 58% of assessed UK catch limits were set above scientific advice. The UK must enter negotiations with a clear commitment to science-based limits. Alongside 44 other parliamentarians, I have written to the Minister to express that position, and I look forward to receiving his response. Secondly, a fisheries and seafood sector strategy is just one piece of the puzzle in the more joined-up approach that we need to see for ocean governance. The restoration of fish stocks cannot be achieved through fisheries policy alone; it requires a systematic approach to how we manage our seas. The most recent report of the APPG for the ocean called for a cross-departmental ocean strategy to address the fragmentation of ocean governance. Currently, the responsibility for our seas sits among multiple Ministers and Departments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge highlighted. We have heard the Government say that the UK is back in the oceans business. I sincerely welcome that, but it needs to be backed up by a clear ocean strategy that incorporates expertise from coastal communities, academia, the environmental sector and, of course, the fishing and seafood sectors. I will conclude with an observation. It sometimes feels as though fisheries and ocean conservation are pitted against each other, as if we might choose between protecting our marine environment and supporting the UK’s sustainable fisheries industry. That is not true, and we must move beyond that false dichotomy. Earlier this year, the APPG for the ocean heard from Clive Mills, a local Sussex fisherman, and his daughter, who came to Westminster to warn that there may be less than 10 years left in the profession because there are simply not enough fish. His warnings are for all the families who have fished in those waters for generations, and who may no longer be able to pass on their livelihoods to the next generation. I urge the Minister to go and see the truly inspirational work being done. Fish populations can recover if the Government support the conditions that give them the opportunity. In the North sea, haddock, whiting and plaice stocks are now more than twice the minimum level required to support sustainable fisheries, demonstrating that when well-managed stocks have the chance, they will rebound. There are clear steps that the Government can take now to support a fair transition towards sustainable and low-impact fishing, including the transparent allocation of fishing opportunities that rewards vessels that deliver environmental, social and local economic benefits, and the tackling of destructive practices such as bottom trawling. It has been over a year since the closure of the consultation on banning bottom trawling in marine protected areas, so I am keen to hear from the Minister when we will get the Government’s response. Our oceans and all who depend on them are running out of time. We cannot afford to be delaying the important decisions if we want healthy seas and to leave a sustainable fishing industry for the next generation.
Order. Mr Carmichael, I understand the pressures on time, but you are the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. If you wish to speak briefly and then leave, I am quite willing to accommodate you.
Thank you for the unexpected pleasure and opportunity, Sir Roger. I will say just a few words on the subject, because there are a number of matters that concern me. I want to pick up on a few of the points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). She spoke about the quality of scientific advice, and ICES is the absolute benchmark in these matters. However, she may wish to consider the fact that, last year, the mackerel stock recommendation was for a total closure—in fact, from memory, I think we agreed a 40% cut. This year, on the basis of new advice, it is apparent that the mackerel stock is back at a safe biological level, so there are these occasions when it becomes apparent that the fisheries advice from ICES has to be put into its proper context. On the many occasions when I am told that it is necessary to have a total allowable catch of zero, it is often in answer to the question: what will it take to restore the stock to a safe level within 12 months? The only answer to that question can be a zero TAC, but that then begs another question that nobody ever asks: if we have a zero TAC, will it restore the stock to that safe level? The answer is no, because it will take several years before stocks of white fish, such as cod—we all know the pressures on North sea cod at the moment—can recover. The hon. Member for Rotherham also referenced the healthy level of haddock stock at the moment. For those who are responsible for fisheries management, that highlights the difficulty and complexity of this issue. To put it in its crudest form, haddock swim with cod. If we set a zero or very low TAC for cod, as has been suggested for the northern shelf this year—notwithstanding the fact that we think that there are at least three subspecies of cod in the North sea—there is a danger that it will serve only to present cod as a choke species. That then prevents the white fish industry from targeting the haddock that, as we know, is in a healthy state. I say to the House, and to all those who follow our proceedings, that in this industry there is an infinitely complex scenario, and it really is necessary for everybody to approach this issue with a measure of humility. We must understand that for those communities where fishing matters—the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) referred to them in his speech—it matters a great deal. I am concerned when I see the plethora of environmental non-governmental organisations that now enter this debate with a very simplistic analysis. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would deny commercial fishing opportunities to those communities that rely on them most. That is why the hon. Member’s work and that of the APPG, of which I have been a member for 25 years, to bring people together to achieve an in-depth understanding of what is involved for the different stocks and the different communities, is absolutely critical. It feels like there is always some species under pressure in some part of our waters, and I fear that that will always be the case. A few years ago, the different pelagic species were under serious pressure. We understand that pelagic species, such as mackerel and herring, will migrate through British waters into Faroese waters and up into Icelandic waters. That is why the idea that somehow or another one country can take responsibility for fisheries management is simply for the birds—biology defies that sort of simplistic approach. At the end of the day, the people who have the biggest stake in ensuring that there are healthy fish stocks are the people who work in the industry and who will want some day to pass the businesses that they have built up over several generations on to the next generation. These are the people and these are the communities who suffer most when we get it wrong here.
I am listening intently to everything that the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I completely agree that it is UK communities that are suffering the most at the expense of the internationals. Does he agree that we need to listen to those people and include them at the heart of any fishing decisions we make? At the moment, they do not have a seat at the table on every occasion.
I have preached that sermon in this House for the last 25 years. We should also remember that the ICES advice we spoke about earlier is two years out of date—the data is two years from the acquisition to the implementation. Hearing from fishermen and understanding the expertise they employ when they take their nets out to sea must be at the heart of this debate. Respect for people who have, for generations, made a living from this industry—from the seas—must be the starting point. Stick to that and everything else will surely fall into place. I am very grateful to you, Sir Roger, for allowing me the opportunity to speak.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)Labour
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this debate and bringing this action plan to our attention. I only regret that we are not having these exchanges in the main Chamber, which would give fishing and fishing communities their proper place in our national life. I cannot begin my remarks today without expressing the continuing sorrow in my Na h-Eileanan an Iar constituency over the loss of the Kilda fishing boat and all three souls aboard it off the coast of Lewis on 13 October. Only one body has been recovered, which is that of Douglas Craigie. The other men—Norman Murray, or Tam as he was known, and Murdo Morrison, the 23-year-old mate—remain unaccounted for. It is a testament to the power of the ocean that a life raft from the Kilda was found on Shetland’s shorelines last week, although coastal searches there have been in vain. We all know, of course, that the bounty and the sorrow of the sea are intertwined with my constituency and with all other coastal communities across Britain, and our condolences go to the families affected. The fishing industry in the Western Isles has shrunken considerably since its 19th-century heyday as one of the biggest herring ports in Europe. However, it still makes a major contribution to the local economy, despite attempts by the previous SNP-Green Government in Scotland effectively to shut down the Western Isles fishing fleet with the imposition of the hated highly protected marine areas. Stark opposition from island fishing communities and other communities around the coast have won that battle for now. As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has pointed out, the crisis of conservation is very real and must be tackled. However, the experience of the HPMA debacle has left a scar on the fishing fleet and on the conservation agenda. The consequential danger of imposing this top-down approach is that no environmental measure is now acceptable to fishing communities, unless they are taken along, listened to and involved. That includes the draconian new restrictions that the Scottish Government are seeking to impose—HPMA2, as they are dubbed—which are currently being consulted on. I am glad that the action plan brought forward has involved fishing and fishing communities, as all movements on the fishing industry should. There is powerful evidence from my constituency that self-imposed controls introduced by the Western Isles fishermen have proved effective, while increasing the value of the landings. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, those fishers are committed to sustainability, because where they fish is where they are from. They want to pass this on to the next generation and to maintain their communities in that industry. That is happening in the Western Isles. Data for 2024 shows that the value of landings increased on the previous year by 4% to £16 million, because of restrictions fishermen took in themselves. The only species that decreased in price is brown crab, which has been in decline for the last 20 years, mainly because of the increased effort from nomadic fishing fleets that come and scour them out. Those statistics demonstrate that a top-down approach to conservation, when conservation efforts of the fishermen’s own making are paying dividends, simply will not work. Island fishers still face massive challenges with crewing, fuel prices—as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, pointed out—and the escalating cost of going to sea and of going to market. That is why it is good news that the Prime Minister intends to secure a new deal with the EU to simplify our food exports. That would be welcomed in the Western Isles.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)Labour
I thank my hon. Friend for his speech. Might he allow me to put on record my thanks for the important work of the Troon lifeboat crew, whom I met on Remembrance Sunday? Seafood is an important sector to the Ayrshire economy. It is exported at the port of Troon in my constituency and at Prestwick airport, which, in the first six months of this year, exported 1,780 tonnes—1.78 million kg—of salmon. Does my hon. Friend agree that any seafood sector strategy must look at growing sustainable exporting of that brilliant Scottish product?
I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. It is only by sustaining the industry and communities that we will keep fishing going. The £360 million fisheries and coastal growth fund announced by the UK Government should be distributed fairly by sector, by sustainability and by geography to constituencies such as his. When the Government announced the fund in 2025, it was to be allocated according to the Barnett formula. That means that Scotland receives 8%— £28 million—of the fund, despite having more than half of the UK’s entire catch of fish. It is a matter of considerable regret that the Scottish Government demanded their share of the coastal and fishing fund without agreeing a mechanism outside the Barnett formula that would see a fair share coming to Scotland. I hope that there will be a rebalancing of the fund over its decade-long existence, and that the Minister listens to representations. It is essential that the fund is used to expand and revive coastal communities with a long association of sustainable fishing, which have, over decades, been fished out by nomad fleets and supertrawlers from other areas. We should tackle ownership of the seas and of the quotas. I am disappointed with the way that the action plan approached—or rather, did not approach—quota. The APPG report noted that “debate continues over the extent to which the benefits derived from UK quota are distributed across coastal communities and the inshore fleet.” Well, that is an understatement, certainly when it comes to Scotland. In Scotland, ownership of fishing quota is concentrated in the hands of just five families who feature in T he Sunday Times rich list, who control more than a third of the Scottish quota and whose shares and companies wholly or partly own half of all the Scottish quota. England fares no better. Almost half of the fishing quota in England is owned by Dutch, Icelandic and Spanish companies, and more than half of England’s fishing quota is in the hands of just three companies. Those statistics themselves make the argument that the fishing quota needs to be urgently reviewed. We need a system that is fair, and that considers the economic linkage between quotas and the coastal communities that are adjacent to quotas. I am glad that the action plan referred to the community quota being tried in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Ownership and support concentrated in the hands of a few will not give new opportunities to our coastal communities. The system has to be rethought with guaranteed access for inshore fleets, and, as I said, it should be linked and distributed to local authorities on the model we have seen in my area and other areas. These are bold and ambitious demands, but from small beginnings come a new and revived pelagic fleet, new processing, as has been mentioned, and a new and promising future. A fishing strategy worthy of its name has to tackle the elephant in the room—there are perhaps two elephants: one of conservation and one of control of quota. It also must recognise that, if fishing has a sustainable future, it has to be in the hands of fishers themselves, who have a practical and sustainable view of what is to come.
Order. We are looking at five minutes a head now, please.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)Scottish National Party
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I say a special thanks to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this debate. His excellent speech reflects the contribution he made as a Minister and in leading, with others, the development of the action plan. As a vice-chair of the APPG on fisheries, I welcome this debate. I support the proposed action plan, while acknowledging that many of these matters are largely devolved to the Scottish Government. That said, it is incumbent on me to highlight once again the importance of the Scottish fishing industry in the context of the UK. Scottish fisheries represent 60% of the UK fishing industry, contribute 60% of the UK’s seafood exports and land 75% of all quota species. That may not be big in UK terms, but it is certainly big in Scottish terms, and it is very big in my constituency, as the Minister knows, with ports such as Buckie, Fraserburgh and Peterhead. The Minister has previously signalled his willingness—nay, desire—to work in partnership with the Scottish Government on a strategy that involves all four nations. I encourage him in that regard. Might he be willing to revisit the UK Government approach to the fishing and coastal growth fund, as the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) mentioned? The fund was brought in to ameliorate the damaging outcome of EU negotiations under a former Prime Minister, and the unprecedented 12-year access to our waters. On the upside, the Scottish Government have dedicated £16.6 million in their marine fund Scotland, recognising the importance of the sector to our economy and our coastal communities. Since 2021, it has awarded £86 million to support 499 projects. This year’s funding allocation is revealing: £14.5 million, topped up with only £2.1 million from the fishing and coastal growth fund. Our freedom of information requests have shown that it was indeed a political decision to Barnettise the devolved fund. Scottish fisheries deserve far better than being used to score political points in this way. In the notes the House of Commons Library provided for this debate, it is highlighted how a report from the Cambridge Industrial Innovation Policy group showed that sector strategies that support economic growth do best if policies are tailored to the needs of different industries, based on detailed evidence, and developed in consultation with the industry. That brings me to the matter of skills shortages, which has already been referred to. The processing sector has made great strides forward in encouraging a domestic workforce with work incentives, but gaps in the labour market remain, and those gaps are holding back production and economic growth. That is where a bespoke Scottish visa for international workers would make such a difference to companies in the north-east that can neither grow nor innovate with the staff they have in place. It has been done before, in 2003, under none other than Jack McConnell, the former Scottish Labour leader and the last Labour First Minister of Scotland—or, as he is known these days, Baron McConnell of Glenscorrodale.
I am pleased to say I was a civil servant who partly made the Fresh Talent: Working in Scotland scheme. I am pleased that we were able to do that, but what more have the Scottish Government done to attract migrants and to skill people in Scotland for those jobs, rather than relying on an old scheme?
I am glad the hon. Member asked that question. The problem does not lie in Scotland; it lies here in Westminster. That is what I have been trying to highlight. On the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, it is no secret that I and my party think that Brexit was a catastrophic disaster. The cold hard estimate for the seafood industry revealed that Brexit led to a 30% increase in the cost of transporting products and a 50%9 increase in the cost of packaging.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)Conservative
Can the hon. Member confirm that the SNP’s policy would be to take us back into Europe, almost like the Labour party, and back into the dreaded common fisheries policy?
I thank the hon. Member for intervening on that point because I am very happy to put on record that, despite what he says, neither I nor my party wish to go back into the common fisheries policy. I remind the hon. Member that it was his Prime Minister and the previous Government who negotiated the Brexit deal that led us to this position.
Will the hon. Member give way?
No, I have taken enough interventions; I am running out of time. As we head towards the UK-EU summit on 20 November, I understand that the Scottish White Fish Producers Association is concerned that the worst elements of the common fisheries policy could reappear when the SPS is agreed. I hope that the SPS agreement will instead deliver faster, more streamlined export processes, because without that, the benefits will not be felt by fishermen, processors or coastal communities that rely on trade with the European Union. Scotland needs a seat at the negotiating and decision-making table to ensure that the voice of our fishing and coastal communities is represented, heard and taken on board. Otherwise, a strategy made in Westminster, far from the reality of my constituency in the north-east, will be in danger of failing in its core mission, as the Minister knows.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for calling this debate and the Minister for his prioritisation of a visit to Newlyn in Cornwall so early in his tenure, where I am sure he gained a strong sense of our priorities. Fishing remains central to communities like mine in mid-Cornwall. As we have heard from colleagues on all sides of the Chamber, it is vital that we continue to put our fishermen and women at the heart of shaping and delivering the future of the sector. More topically, I welcome the continued freeze on red diesel duties announced in the Budget, but we must recognise that EU vessels continue to benefit from access to the crisis mechanisms of the European maritime, fisheries and aquaculture fund and the middle east crisis temporary state aid framework. That is putting our fleets at a significant competitive disadvantage and all too often rendering it uneconomical to leave port. Will the Minister consider how the Government can address that competitive disadvantage? Turning to the bigger picture, the fleets in our sector, sector 7, remain under significant pressure, including from foreign vessels, which account for approximately two thirds of landings. Although quota distribution has increased marginally in favour of UK vessels in recent years, not all fisheries are quota-bound and, broadly speaking, catch ratios in the sector continue to reflect historically established entitlements, with the highest concentration of effort per job in the sector remaining among the industrial-scale foreign vessels we have heard quite a bit about today.
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that one of the only opportunities of Brexit was the opportunity to look at the UK quota again and redistribute it to communities and inshore fleets such as his?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the need for a democratisation of many of the quotas. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that. As we all know, not all fishing effort has an equivalent ecological impact. Larger, industrialised and—in my sector, at least—foreign vessels are likely to have a disproportionate impact on stocks, while the smaller vessels of our domestic, largely inshore fleets tend to employ more selective, low-impact fishing methods. Ultimately, the smaller vessels that make up our fleet in Cornwall and across the wider sector act as the bedrock of both employment and environmental stewardship. Those twin priorities should be core Labour priorities. Fishermen tell us about the pressures, which really are mounting in the six to 12 nautical mile zone. Will the Minister consider the efficacy in our sector of potential measures in the six to 12 nautical mile zone, and whether a 221 kW engine-size restriction could meet the employment and environmental challenges? Similar measures have been employed effectively and selectively on a sectoral basis, as in the case of fly seining and beam trawling recently in area 7 and coastal waters, respectively, as well as longer-dated precedent in continental waters, with measures for the North sea plaice box. Finally, in the light of forthcoming responses to our fisheries management plan consultations, I would welcome the introduction not just of some of the proposed technical measures on engine size, but of an integrated approach to biodiversity targets, a climate-sensitive approach to stock rebuilding—that has been alluded to but not spelled out explicitly—that recognises the reality of mixed fisheries, and recognition of the spatial challenges that we have heard about and the need for integrated marine spatial planning, as so masterfully highlighted in the action plan of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge.
Finally and briefly from the Back Benches, I call Mr Myer.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)Labour
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate and on his report. In my region, our identity is shaped by our coastline. From the old fishing villages of Staithes and Skinningrove through to the port at the Tees, the sea has shaped our economy, our identity and the character of our communities, so I welcome this debate and the call for a national fishing and seafood strategy. I will illustrate some of the points made in the debate by adding two experiences from my constituency. The first concerns a fishermen from Easington, who came to see me at my surgery earlier this year. He operates commercially out of Whitby, and for three years he had been trying unsuccessfully to obtain a licence to catch bluefin tuna. I have to confess that before coming to this place, I did not think a great deal about the geographical distribution of licences for bluefin tuna fishing, but I soon discovered that it was a source of considerable frustration for fishermen in the north-east, who felt that opportunities were disproportionately concentrated on the south coast. Here was a hard-working local businessman who wanted to diversify his trade and invest in his future, but who had spent three years trying to secure the necessary permission. I wrote to DEFRA and to the Northumberland Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority, to express this man’s concerns. In July, I was pleased to hear from him that he had finally secured his licence, which he understood to be the only one awarded locally that year. That was a good outcome, but it left me wondering why it took three years, the intervention of an MP and correspondence with different public authorities just for a fisherman to get the opportunity to do what he does best. I hope that any national strategy will look seriously at such barriers, so that we can encourage small fishing businesses to diversify and grow, and not make their lives unnecessarily difficult.
I sympathise with the plight of my hon. Friend’s constituent, because one of my constituents faced the same problem with planning for a tuna fishery, having a licence granted one year, but not getting it granted another.
I will discuss my second issue briefly. It was a national story. For those unfamiliar with what happened, in 2021 an enormous number of dead crustaceans were washed up on our beaches, followed by a collapse in catches of as much as 80%, by some fishermen’s estimates.. That was devastating for the local industry; boats were sold and businesses closed. The most troubling thing is that, five years later, we still do not have a definitive explanation of what happened. That battle for truth has been documented in a new film, “All Rivers Spill Their Stories to the Sea”, and we will hold a screening of it in Parliament for parliamentarians shortly. I encourage all Members to attend. I pay tribute to the local authorities who came together to establish a working group to look into the issue. I pay particular tribute to Councillor Philip Thomson and former Councillor Rachel Creevy for working across parties to drive forward that agenda. Will the Minister look into the findings published by that working group to see whether lessons can be learned by Government? I echo the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for science funding to be a pillar of the strategy. Ultimately, if we want to restore confidence among those in the industry, we must demonstrate that our fishermen’s knowledge is valued, and that when issues arise, they will be thoroughly investigated and those directly affected can shape and direct what happens next. Our fishing communities do not lack ambition; what they need is a Government who are prepared to work alongside them to remove unnecessary obstacles and safeguard their environment, and to give them a greater say in the decisions that shape their future. I hope that that is the ambition that guides this strategy, which we hope to see in the near future.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Mr MacDonald, you have about eight minutes.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)Liberal Democrat
Thank you, Sir Roger—I will take about half of that, I hope. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing the debate. I also welcome the early visits the Minister made to Scotland and his willingness to engage with the industry, which is so important to my part of Britain. The first point I want to make is that the UK Government are leading the negotiations on fishing opportunities with the EU, and the decisions made over the coming weeks and months will be extremely significant for all our constituents. The economic viability of many remote west highland communities depends on the fishing industry, and particularly fish farming—an issue that has not been discussed so far. The industry supports employment, businesses and entire communities along our coastline. In many of the more remote parts of my constituency, fishing and seafood processing are among the few industries capable of providing skilled, well-paid and relatively secure, all-year-round employment. The fish farming industry is incredibly important to the west highlands and islands. It employs about 2,500 people in a sparsely populated area, with a substantial number more in related services such as processing and transport. The industry is well aware of the need to constantly improve its environmental credentials, and it must. However, the bottom line is that there are fewer and fewer wild fish, so the need for a sustainable fish farming industry will only grow in importance. Should the hugely well-funded, mainly American, anti-fish farming pressure groups succeed in their aim of closing down fish farming, they will also succeed in sounding the death knell of our already struggling coastal communities. That matters enormously when we consider the demographic challenges facing the highlands and islands. We have a serious problem with depopulation, with young people leaving because they cannot find the employment or opportunities they need to build a future in their own communities. We cannot expect those communities to survive if we allow the industries that sustain them to disappear. The fishing industry is therefore not simply an economic asset for the highlands; it is essential to the long-term viability of our coastal communities. It is also worth noting that if the Scottish fish farming industry has its legs taken away from underneath it, that will boost the fish farming industries in Norway, the Faroes, Canada, Chile and so on, which would be only too happy to step in. The second point I want to make is that we face a significant challenge as fish stocks move northwards into cooler waters. For the first nine months of this year, the value of the catch in Scotland was 17% down on the same period last year. That is having a continued impact on our fishing communities and the opportunities available to the fleet. Crab, langoustine and lobster fishing is important in my constituency but, with far reduced catches, it offers a hard and much less lucrative livelihood than a decade ago. One of my many sons is a recreational diver, and he tells me of the destruction caused to the seabed by scallop dredging. Those who hand dive for scallops in our community have the support of the more environmentally aware locals. Will the Minister please update us on his view on the sustainability and environmental impact of scallop dredging? Only 54% of the food we eat is produced in the UK. We can and must do better. Our fishing industry has an important role to play in feeding the nation, but we must maintain high environmental standards and protect our fish stocks. As we have heard, Scotland accounts for 60% to 70% of the UK’s fishing industry, and we have a substantial processing sector and a network of businesses around the coast. However, none of that can survive without a viable fleet bringing fish ashore and securing the best possible opportunities for 2027, particularly for key stocks such as cod. A collapse in remote Scotland’s school rolls and visa restrictions threaten the future workforce that we need so badly. I hope that the Minister will take a pragmatic approach to both. We have good fisheries management in Scotland, but we must strike a balance between protecting the marine environment and sustaining the very fragile coastal communities that depend on it. The fishing industry is vital to the future of the highlands and to the food security and economic prosperity not just of the highlands and Scotland but of the whole of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will recognise that and ensure that our fishing communities have the opportunities and support that they need to thrive.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)Conservative
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate. For centuries, fishing has fed this island nation. It has built our harbour towns and sent generation after generation to sea in all waters. In Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, almost three in every 100 jobs still depend on the seafood industry. That is exactly why—not just in Cornwall but across the country—the official Opposition support the creation of the UK’s first comprehensive cross-Government departmental national fishing strategy. I thank all Members who were involved in “An Action Plan for a Thriving and Sustainable UK Fishing Industry” and the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries for the work that it did to pull together that comprehensive piece of work. However, let us be honest about where the industry stands today. Full-time jobs are down by about 15% since 2024, and landings fell by 10% by weight in a single year between 2024 and 2025. The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), has said previously in this House that DEFRA is “held in exceptionally poor regard” by fishers. A strategy is welcome, but it will mean something only if the Government are prepared to change course, as has been said. The Government constantly give out the right narrative that food security is national security, but in the Budget a fortnight ago, neither food nor fishing were mentioned. The APPG’s fisheries action plan makes 38 recommendations, and the industry has been clear about which recommendations matter the most. Fishing and seafood must be fully represented in the UK’s food security planning. Fishing grounds must be recognised in marine planning as what they are: vital places that provide food. The Government must give full effect to the Fisheries Act 2020, which was passed by the previous Conservative Government and balances the social, economic and environmental sides of fishing instead of just putting an emphasis on one of them. Will the Minister commit to a cross-Government departmental national fishing strategy that gives reassurance to the fishing sector, and will he lay out a timetable for it? Will fishing and seafood be fully represented in the UK’s food security assessments? My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) rightly outlined that we must focus on dealing with the short-term issues and pressures that face our fishing sector. Since the Iran war began, fuel costs for fishermen have roughly doubled. Successful businesses have exhausted their reserves and are going bust. Fishermen are leaving the industry. After months of campaigning, Ministers can still point only to diesel relief, marine voyage relief and the growth fund, all of which existed before the crisis began. The Budget offered some help for electricity-intensive businesses, but nothing for fuel-intensive ones such as fishing.
My hon. Friend mentioned the energy-intensive industry scheme. In the summer, I met Jimmy Buchan, the CEO of the Scottish Seafood Association. His biggest ask was for fish processors to be included in that scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should consider including fish processors in that scheme?
I absolutely agree. The Government must look beyond fishermen and at the wider sector, including the food processing sector. That is a key ask as part of this debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that in his wind-up speech. The challenge on fuel means that countries on the continent—France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Ireland—have spent tens of millions supporting their fishermen, so much so that in some of our waters the only boats that can afford to fish are the European ones. That is frankly absurd and prompts the question: what are the Government doing about it? Does the Minister think it fair that British fishermen are competing in their own British waters with a European fleet propped up by their Governments? Will the Minister bring forward a tailored plan to provide fuel support to fishermen, as the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has requested? One aim of Brexit was to put British fishermen first in British waters. The previous Conservative Government took the UK out of the common fisheries policy and negotiated 750,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities for 2024. What was that for? That opportunity was squandered by the Labour Government when they handed EU vessels full access to our waters until 2038—12 years of fishing rights signed away at a cost that the NFFO estimates reaches £6 billion easily. What did our fishermen get in return? Absolutely nothing. Under the deal the Conservative Government negotiated, access would have been agreed year-by-year, giving us the same leverage that Norway uses to secure a fair deal. That leverage has now gone, thanks to the complete disregard of the Labour Government for the livelihoods of fishermen up and down the country. For this Government, fishermen are just another pawn they can sacrifice for a closer relationship with the EU, whatever the cost.
If that is so, why did the hon. Gentleman’s Government not negotiate one-year rolling access rather than a longer period?
The one-year rolling access was in the pipeline to continue, as it was with the negotiations with Europe. It was this Labour Government that signed away our fishing rights for 12 years. I must turn to the hon. Member for Cambridge, for whom I have a great deal of respect. When the deal was signed in May last year, he was the Minister responsible for fisheries at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He did not oppose it; he defended it. In a written answer he said: “That deal secures a continuation of the current access arrangements.” That is 12 more years of the status quo for a fleet that was promised so much more. That was the deal that he stood behind. I welcome his support today for the fishing strategy, but fishermen in every harbour town will be entitled to ask why he did not fight for them when he was in a position to act. We have a new Prime Minister who talks a great deal about supporting our food sector and our fishermen. We are about to enter an EU summit on 20 November and the widely circulated joint draft statement says that the Prime Minister welcomes “decisions on full reciprocal access to waters to fish, until 30 June 2038…and the extension of energy co-operation on a continuing basis.” There we have it. Our fishermen have been sold down the line yet again by this Labour Government. I will give the Minister the opportunity to intervene if he is able to say why this is such a good deal for our fishermen. He does not wish to intervene. Will he confirm that nothing in the SPS agreement will affect UK fisheries management? Will he instruct negotiators not to concede technical measures or any other backdoor measures to the EU in the forthcoming negotiations? There is also the challenge of spatial squeeze at sea, which was picked up by many Members. Fishermen are being squeezed out of their own waters. Offshore wind takes their grounds, with compulsory marine protected areas taking yet more in a double displacement. The NFFO warns that the third round of marine conservation zones could, in effect, ban fishing in an area the size of Wales, limiting the scope of fishing in this country and once again damaging the livelihoods of our fishermen. On that point, will the Government review the compensatory marine protected areas for offshore wind? What are the Government doing to make the case for fishing to the Crown Estate? That brings me to the fishing and coastal growth fund. The industry welcomed the fund, but let me be clear about its scale: £360 million over 12 years is around £30 million a year. However, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations estimates that the EU access deal will cost the sector £6 billion. What side of the sector are this Government on? Energy upgrades funded through the fund will take months to deliver, and any fuel savings will be eclipsed by today’s diesel prices. When the EFRA Committee asked the Government to frontload the fund, Ministers said no. Without help, investment and skills are already leaving right now. There may therefore not be much of the sector left for the fund to support. With landings down 10% by weight in a single year, does the Minister seriously believe that £360 million spread over 12 years is enough? I put the question again: will he look to frontload the fund to support our sector now? To conclude, the fishing industry’s asks are clear and reasonable: tailored fuel support and an SPS deal that protects our hard-won controls in our waters, rather than negotiating them away, as this Government have with the 12 years they signed away and are due to put in concrete, so to speak, at the EU summit on 20 November. Negotiations that concede nothing through the back door are an absolute request of the fishing sector, as are an end to double displacement and the first ever UK fishing strategy. Our fishermen feel forgotten. They deserve a Government who are truly on their side. Over the past two years, this Labour Government have shown a blatant disregard for fishermen’s way of life and for the importance of their work to UK food security. This debate is a chance for the Minister to show that he gets it and that he cares. I look forward to his response to the specific questions that have been asked.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)Labour
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing this debate on issues of which he, as my ministerial predecessor, has huge knowledge and expertise. Coming from a coastal community and living in a city that looks to the sea for its livelihood, I am proud to represent the hard-working coastal communities that contribute so much to our nation’s prosperity. Since my appointment, I have met many representatives of the fishing and seafood industry, from whom I have learned a huge amount. In Newlyn, Weymouth, Grimsby, Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Selsey, I have seen their pride and skill and heard about their work to put our wonderful seafood on our plates. From them I heard loud and clear that fishing is so much more than just another industry. We are an island nation and fishing has shaped the rhythms, ways of life and character of our coastal communities for generations. Traditions, knowledge and skills have been handed down through families. The best tribute I can pay to fishing’s rich heritage is to do my best to secure its future. While I talk of fishing’s rich heritage, I must, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge eloquently did, convey the deep gratitude and respect I have for all those who work or have worked as fishermen. That includes the many who have sadly lost their lives bringing back our harvest of seafood. My sympathies also go to the families of the crew of the Kilda, who were rightly mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton). The fishing community contends with tough and dangerous working conditions. I commend all efforts by the industry to improve safety, including by working with Seafish and with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, among other organisations. Last week, I visited the RNLI lifeboat station in Selsey and met the Fishermen’s Mission to hear about their work to save lives and to support the welfare of fishermen. I was struck by the deep connections between the fishing industry and both those organisations. That includes volunteer lifeboat crew, who are drawn from the community and are often fishermen themselves. I place on record my gratitude to all those who devote themselves to improving safety and to saving lives at sea. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has taken a leading role in the development of the APPG on fisheries action plan for a thriving and sustainable UK fishing industry. As I said at the action plan’s recent launch, I very much welcome its publication and I have heard its call for a stronger strategic view of the fishing and seafood sector. I will soon be meeting representatives of the APPG, including my hon. Friend, to discuss its recommendations in greater detail. Any future work to develop a strategy would, of course, need to recognise devolution, the diversity of the sector and the strong frameworks that are already in place. I will also be considering our long-term vision for the fishing and seafood industry further with the sector. As I said at the launch event, many of the APPG’s objectives align very closely with my own. Like the APPG, I want to see a thriving fishing industry that delivers thriving coastal communities, good jobs and better job security. To achieve that, we need environmentally sustainable stocks, a modern fleet, infrastructure and supply chains and above all, a motivated, skilled workforce.
I thank the Minister for his helpful and positive responses to the questions we have asked. I am sure he will come on to this, but I gently remind him that, in Northern Ireland and Scotland, one of the problems for many of us is the crews and the workforce, as we raised in submissions to the former Minister. Can the Minister give me some assurance in relation to that?
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. I look forward to seeing him next week to discuss the issues facing colleagues in Northern Ireland, alongside the processing organisation. Perhaps we could pick up that conversation then. Taking action to deliver for the fishing and seafood industry is a priority for this Government. It involves acting to deliver and consider a number of action plan recommendations. To highlight just a few, they include delivering multi-annual funding. We are already doing that through the fisheries and seafood scheme, which also supports training towards accredited qualifications. We are also considering how the action plan’s four pillars can help us to guide policy, recognising that fishing is a vital food-producing sector that aligns well with existing work in DEFRA to build national food security. We could consider how to address capacity gaps in inshore fisheries management as well. I can also point to a number of other achievements, including significant progress on the fisheries management plans and the recovery of bluefin tuna and bass. The benefits that those successes bring are evident to coastal communities and demonstrate that good fisheries management works. We have allocated unused authorisations with a focus on supporting young and new fishermen entering the industry, and we have produced our UK seafood careers road map. Since we opened the fisheries and seafood scheme, we have received over 600 applications worth £25 million. Some of that is being specifically targeted at small-scale coastal fleets, and we have made funding available for new engines and gearboxes, which will help improve fuel efficiency. Meanwhile, the £1.5 million annual seafood export package is helping seafood businesses reach new markets. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), said, our current focus is on this autumn’s negotiations for fishing opportunities for 2027, from which I will do my best to secure the best deal possible for UK fishermen. Many of those negotiations are challenging and full of trade-offs that need to be made.
In just 10 days’ time, the UK-EU summit is happening in Brussels. Can the Minister assure us that our fishing industry will not be sold down the river in those talks?
I am coming on to the points that the hon. Member made, but my interest in the negotiations and the summit is to protect UK interests. That is the absolute priority of this Government. I have spoken to the fishing industry to hear its priorities, and I have taken them into account when setting out our approach to the negotiations. From previous exchanges in the House and with Members, I am aware of concerns about the level of fishing in UK waters by Norwegian trawlers. That is reciprocal, and I know there are UK vessels that appreciate the arrangement’s flexibility. I heard about that when I met the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation in Fraserburgh in August, and stakeholders raised it again ahead of the negotiations with Norway. The negotiations began in October, and I will seek to get the best possible deal. There are also difficult discussions and decisions on balancing the long-term sustainability of northern shelf cod with providing for the needs of our coastal communities in 2027. Addressing that is a priority of mine in trilateral negotiations with the EU and Norway, and I have spoken about it with UK stakeholders in recent weeks. We will continue to engage closely with the fishing industry to identify the best ways forward. Of course, to support healthy fish stocks, we must prioritise a healthy and productive marine environment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) rightly raised, and I am working to balance the decisions on that with ensuring that the fishing industry remains sustainable. That includes marine protection, and I am mindful of the commitment to put in place stage 3 byelaws before the end of this year. Those byelaws would be substantial and could close 13% of English waters to bottom trawling. I do not want to place any unnecessary restrictions on industry, so given the potential impacts for the fishing industry, it is important that we take time to get this right. We are also working at pace to finalise arrangements for a new SPS deal, which will make it easier and cheaper to export seafood to the EU. More details on that will follow shortly, as part of the EU-UK summit later this month. Work is continuing to deliver funding. Currently, that is through the fisheries and seafood scheme, but we are also shaping, with the industry and others, the longer-term delivery of the fishing and coastal growth fund. On cost pressures and similar issues raised by Members, I recognise the genuine hardship that high, volatile fuel prices are causing, as well as the concerns about competition from EU vessels that may have benefited from temporary fuel-related support. There is support via the existing tax system, and we have recently announced funding for new, more efficient engines and gearboxes. I am listening to fishing communities to understand the pressures that they face, and I am looking at all options. My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) made a number of helpful points. I recognise that access to the UK’s six to 12 nautical mile zone is an important issue for the inshore fleet, particularly where there are concerns about pressure from larger vessels due to EU activity. I heard that message loud and clear during my time in Penzance and Newlyn. My hon. Friend is right to raise those concerns, and I assure him that I will continue to have those discussions. Any new management measures would need to respect the UK’s international obligations and be evidence-based. I am very happy to meet him on those points.
Will the Minister write to me with the Government’s reflections on the mass crustacean die-off that affected Teesside, following the publication of the report of the working group formed by local authorities in my region?
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on these important matters. I can go one better: I am very happy to meet him to discuss the issues in further detail. On labour and workforce challenges, Members will recognise that immigration policy is for the Home Office to comment on. However, I can assure them that my Department and I are in regular conversation with our Home Office counterparts about the concerns of industry, and I will continue to raise those matters across Government. On engaging with the fishing and seafood industry, my officials and I already engage extensively through hugely varied forums. We have a strong framework of engagement, as I set out in July in the Government’s response to the EFRA Committee’s April report. We can always do more, so I look forward to continuing to improve how the Department engages with stakeholders, including the fishing and seafood industry. I am currently looking to build on the visits I have undertaken in my first few months in post, to listen more to what fishermen have to say. I have a date in the diary to visit Shetland, and I am considering a number of other invitations to ports around the country. I have heard the calls for a stronger strategic view of the fishing and seafood sector, and I will consider the case for a national strategy. I welcome the APPG’s action plan and its recommendations, some of which are already being delivered. I will also consider its wider findings and recommendations. In the meantime, my focus is on delivery for the fishing and seafood industry. I want the industry to thrive and to turn delivery into thriving communities, good jobs, better food security and a healthier marine environment. As I said at the start, the best tribute I can pay to the sector’s rich heritage is to do my very best to secure its future. I thank all Members for their contributions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for securing the debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of a fishing and seafood sector strategy.
Source: UK Parliament Hansard API. Debate ID: 5434257.