(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the fishing industry.
I place on record my appreciation of the Backbench Business Committee for making time available for this debate and for bringing it back to its rightful place here in the main Chamber of the House.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues often tell us, rightly, that food security is national security. The focus of our discussions about food security is often what we farm on land, but we should never lose sight of the fact that we are an island nation and we are surrounded by seas which, if managed properly, can provide us with a source of good quality protein that can be harvested in a carbon-efficient way.
The people who work in our fishing industries often do so in difficult and dangerous circumstances. Still too many of them lose their lives in pursuit of our food and we should record our appreciation for what they do to keep us fed. I say “fishing industries” for a reason. Too often, we talk about fishing as if it were a single homogeneous industry, when the truth is very different. Even in my constituency, the issues facing inshore crab boats are very different from those facing the larger white- fish boats, which are in turn different from the issues facing the pelagic boats. Layer on top of that the interests of aquaculture, and we begin to get a sense of the complexity of seafood harvesting and production.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
As many Members may know, warmer sea temperatures brought unexpected numbers of octopus to the waters around South Devon last year, and my crab and lobster fishermen have seen their catch decimated. They have lost up to 80%, hauling empty pots for weeks on end. That means fleet members are now cancelling maintenance work and having to lay off crew. Our fishing communities desperately need support, whether to enable them to stay in the industry or to help them decommission and leave. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that support is desperately needed from the Government?
Mr Carmichael
It is critically important. I heard that for myself from my hon. Friend’s constituents when I visited Brixham not once but twice in the run-up to Christmas. It remains to be seen whether the invasion of octopus will be permanent because of changing water temperature, or whether it is just another of those blips that I think last happened in the 1950s. Whatever the truth of the matter, something has to be done for the industry that is there at the moment when the truth is finally established.
We speak about aquaculture as being all about finfish, but in my constituency and elsewhere the role of shellfish aquaculture is enormously important and deserves more attention, especially as we anticipate the conclusion of a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union.
Fishing is still a predominantly community-based and family-run industry. It may not shift the dial massively in terms of UK-wide GDP, but in those areas where it matters it is nearly always essential. In Shetland, caught and farmed fish account for approximately one third of our local economic product. We have benefited over the years from the presence of oil and gas, and now from a growing visitor economy, but they do not define our community in the way that fishing does. I labour that point because it matters. People would be forgiven for thinking that this is an industry determined to plunder the seas and extract every last living organism from it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fishing is predominantly a family business, and the people working in it want to hand on their business to the next generation. They have more of an interest in ensuring that there is a business to be handed on.
Fishing is an area of Government policy where good co-operation between our Governments makes a difference. That is what the industry needs and expects of us. Sadly, it does not always get it. The recent controversy around the fishing and coastal growth fund illustrates how it is fishers who lose out when that goes wrong. Let us remember that the roots of that fund lie in the decision of the Prime Minister to sign up for a 12-year extension of the catastrophically bad deal that Boris Johnson got us in the trade and co-operation agreement in 2020. Given that the EU was looking only for a five-year extension, it is quite an achievement to have managed to negotiate it up to 12 years. Let us also not forget that the loss of fishing effort traded away by the Prime Minister is worth about £6 billion over the 12-year period at today’s prices. If we were able to get half or even a quarter of that, the fund would never have been necessary.
To my mind, it makes perfect sense for the fund to be administered on a UK-wide basis, as was the case with the previous fund delivered by the last Government. That would, in fact, have been an opportunity for Scotland’s two Governments to work together collaboratively on the delivery, and might have been more reflective of the fact that Scotland’s fleet accounts for more than 60% of the UK fishing effort.
Instead, the Government in Whitehall acquiesced to demands from the SNP Government in Edinburgh to devolve the administration. With devolution, there inevitably followed the application of the Barnett formula, and, as a result, we receive only 8.3% of the fund. Madam Deputy Speaker, I could weep. On one of the rare occasions when they do manage to agree on something, they still manage to do it in a way that works to the detriment of the fishermen in my constituency.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a matter of considerable regret that the Scottish Government asked for the fishing and coastal growth fund to be devolved without first agreeing the mechanism outside the Barnett formula that would reflect the fact that Scotland has a larger share of the fishing industry?
Mr Carmichael
That would have been perfect sense. It was certainly also regrettable that it was said that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation had asked for this, when they obviously had not. A good, mature working relationship between the two Governments is required, and unfortunately we are just not there at the moment. That may change after May—who knows?
The irony of the fuss created by SNP Ministers about the allocation of the fishing and coastal growth fund was not lost on fishermen in Shetland. As The Shetland Times pointed out, Shetland received only 5% of the Scottish Government’s marine fund, despite the fact that we account for 20% of Scotland’s fishing product. We were assured by local SNP politicians that this was entirely different, as their scheme was “merit based”, which presumably means that we got our quota share only because we were not good enough to get the rest.
The relationship between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations is one thing; more important still is the relationship between all Governments and the industry as a whole. When any Government think they know better than the industry, we know that bad outcomes are just around the corner. Never has that been seen more clearly than when the SNP in Edinburgh, along with their coalition partners the Greens, sought to close down vast areas of fishing grounds by designating them as highly protected marine areas, which was stopped only by the most colossal campaign by industry and community organisations around the coast. It should never have been so difficult to make our own Government back down on measures that were so obviously an existential threat to coastal and island communities.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
My colleague is making some very good points about where Governments are misjudging these matters. Charter fishermen in Torbay are extremely worried that the three-bag limit on pollack could devastate their industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government need to monitor this extremely closely to see whether it does have this massive impact on the industry?
Mr Carmichael
My hon. Friend makes a relevant point, which goes to the heart of how decisions are made. It is critical that Government are able to take on the infinite nuance and complexity in fisheries management, and that is done by being in the ports and on the quayside, talking to fishermen, processors, auction houses, transporters and all the rest of it.
The signs remain, however, that the same attitude persists in the Scottish Government. Members will have heard me speak before about the difficult situation facing our pelagic fleet as a result of the quota cuts, which are yet to be finalised, from the year-end negotiations. These cuts will put our pelagic fleet under serious pressure. At times like this, it is more important than ever that boats are able to land fish where they will get the best possible price, so the increase in the requirement for pelagic boats to land in Scotland limits unnecessarily their scope to maximise their restricted opportunities. Again, it has not gone unnoticed that nationalist voices in The Shetland Times condemn the change, while in the pages of Fishing News, Gillian Martin MSP stridently supports her ministerial colleagues.
It does not have to be like this. Our fishing fleets around the coast and in our island communities ask only to be listened to and heard by Government. They do a difficult and often dangerous job, and they should not have to contend with it being made even more difficult —and yes, occasionally more dangerous—by the people we elect to serve here and in other UK legislatures.
Torcuil Crichton
The right hon. Gentleman speaks about the fishing industry being heard. I hear reports of the SNP saying that Shetland would be listened to if it had a seat at the SNP table. I have a message for Shetland: we in the Western Isles have an SNP MSP, and we have not been listened to for 18 years.
Mr Carmichael
I am sure that message that will indeed be heard with some interest in the Northern Isles. We island communities need to learn from the experience of each other.
There are lessons to be learned from the management of fisheries in different parts of the country. Before Christmas, I visited Brixham with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee as part of our ongoing inquiry into fishing and the marine environment, and much of what I heard there was similar to what I hear back in Shetland. In fact, speaking to fishermen around the country, the same issue rears its head time and again: spatial squeeze. The salami slicing of access to traditional fishing grounds as a result of other marine and maritime activities now poses a clear and present danger to the viability of our fishing industries as a whole.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the obstructive nature of some authorities. Does he share my concern about some of the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities? The Eastern IFCA, for instance, has caused grave concern to my fishing constituents in Boston, who are furious about the increasing interference and regulations. It is almost as though they want to stop the whole fishing industry as opposed to enhancing it.
Mr Carmichael
I do not know the specifics around the Eastern IFCA, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me about it, I will see if I can help him out in any way, shape or form. It comes back to my earlier point: authorities have to listen to and be informed by the fishing industry, whatever their locus. By the same token, the fishing industry has to accept that it is not always going to get everything it wants either.
On spatial squeeze, no single demand is unreasonable: the development of offshore renewable energy, aquaculture, marine protected areas, the laying of cables and pipelines, the use of the sea for leisure and doubtless other purposes —the list goes on. At every turn of the wheel, it is fishing effort that is reduced to accommodate something else. The root cause of the problem is that no one holds the ring to look at the whole picture of how our seas are being used. The policy of compensatory MPAs for damage caused to the seas by development done elsewhere feels particularly unjust and illogical.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Does my co-chair on the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries not think that the marine spatial prioritisation programme, which was introduced last summer, will do exactly the job he is hoping to see delivered?
Mr Carmichael
Well, I hope it will. It remains to be seen. As the hon. Lady knows from working with me as co-chair of the APPG on fisheries, along with our independent co-chair the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), to come up with a fisheries strategy for the whole country—it is that lack of strategy that needs to be addressed—the Government have a bit of a backlog on strategies, and the one she mentions has not even joined the queue yet. That is why we are doing this job: I think any initiative without a strategy is always going to struggle. I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to junk a couple of pages of my speech there.
The House should be in no doubt that if the spatial squeeze on our fishing industry is allowed to continue, we shall soon risk losing its critical mass as a productive industry—that is true in all four parts of the United Kingdom. Once that critical mass is lost, we may never recover it. For the families and communities affected, that would be catastrophic. Fishing families are hard-working and economically productive people. Take away their ability to earn a living at sea, and they will not just sit idle; they will doubtless move with heavy hearts to do something else, somewhere else. That will forever change the nature and character of our coastal and island communities, and not in a good way. I hope that the Government will hear the warning and act before it is too late.
Finally, I wish to raise a concern that is very specific to my constituency: Norwegian access to our local waters. There are, as I speak, big, powerful vessels appearing around Shetland that were not there in the past. We often speak about the North sea fishing area, but in reality, so much of the international fishing effort has become concentrated around Shetland. Shetland fishermen have called on the UK Government to reduce the reciprocal catch limits in the UK-Norway annual bilateral fisheries agreement, but that appeal has not been heard. This is effectively the one major fishing effort in our waters over which we can still have some annual control.
The official preliminary figures show that the Norwegians caught over 22,000 tonnes of demersal fish in UK waters, while the UK caught just short of 9,500 tonnes in Norwegian waters. That is not a fair or balanced deal. We have long held the view that Norwegian access is a good thing for the Shetland fleet, not because there are many Shetland vessels going into Norwegian waters, but because several larger Scottish vessels go, which takes them and their catches away from our waters. That illustrates well the subtleties and complexity of managing effort in shared waters.
A degree of Norwegian access is welcome, but the current agreement and catch limits clearly favour Norwegians at the cost of our fleet. The stats show that Norwegians’ saithe catches in UK waters doubled from 8,000 tonnes to 16,000 tonnes between 2024 and 2025. Saithe, let us not forget, is one of the stocks under pressure. Things are tough enough without a doubling of Norwegian effort on a key stock that is concentrated mainly around Shetland. By contrast, the highest UK demersal catch in Norwegian waters this year has been about 4,000 tonnes of haddock. That is a bit of a disparity, so can I can ask the Minister to give urgent attention to the lowering of the reciprocal cap from 30,000 tonnes a year to 20,000 tonnes a year?
There is a commitment in the agreement to reviewing the cap throughout the year. That is something that fishing industry representatives in Shetland have called for, but now it needs to be tackled as a matter of urgency. In this, I am merely the interlocutor. If the Minister wishes to discuss this with the real experts, she will find them in Shetland. I hope that once the days lengthen a little bit, we may see her there.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate.
I start by thanking all those who support our fleets when things go wrong. Having previously worked for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, I have seen how devoted and brave its volunteers are. Many of them are fishermen themselves, and would rush to help others. I pay particular tribute to the men and women of the Looe station, whom I had the pleasure of visiting recently. They really are the best of us. I also pay tribute to the coastguard stations and search and rescue crews.
I thank the many charities who do so much to support our communities and fishing families, including Seafarers UK, Fishermen’s Mission and Fishmongers Hall, to name just a few. I also thank Seafood Cornwall Training, which does so much to help new entrants across our region—something I am very passionate about—and runs safety courses for our fishermen. We cannot overstate how important that work is, and how vital continued Government support is if we are to prevent money from being a barrier to safety.
We are very lucky to have Clive Palfrey in our patch—a born-and-raised Looe lad, former fisherman, lifeboat launch manager and senior coxswain. He has dedicated his life to fishermen’s safety, and has led many initiatives, including the first roll-out of life jackets with personal locator beacons. Can I ask the Minister to meet Clive and others, so that there is a better understanding that we still face so many tragic losses in this industry—it is the most dangerous peacetime occupation—and to discuss what can be done to prevent further deaths?
The fishing communities of Looe and Polperro are iconic. They are woven into the fabric of the town’s heritage and history, but Members should be under no illusion about how diminished they are from their former glory. That is not just because of the greatly reduced number of vessels, but because of how hard it is for them to make a living, and to support their families and communities like mine. Last year’s Great British inshore fishing survey made for grim reading.
If we are serious about the future of fishing, we must make it accessible to the next generation. Young people cannot step aboard a fishing vessel until the age of 16, even though that is the prime age for learning practical skills. We also lack structured support and mentoring, which allows traditional knowledge, safety guidelines and best practice to pass between generations. A properly funded mentoring and training pathway, alongside help-to-buy schemes for boats, licences and quota, would make fishing a realistic career again, rather than a closed shop.
As bass stocks rebuild, 2026 fishing opportunities are limited to those already permitted to catch bass, which closes the door to new entrants developing skills and landing bass lawfully. This risks locking the next generation out of the industry at the very moment that recovery should be creating new opportunity.
Cornwall’s fishing industries and communities have a long and proven history of managing a successful industry, and that record should be recognised. I support the call from the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation for a ring-fenced allocation from the fishing and coastal growth fund to deliver a Cornish pilot fishing strategy. We could then take our fishing and seafood sector forward in a stable, confident way as we reset our relationship with the EU. Can the Minister set out when applications to that fishing and coastal communities growth fund will open, the timeline for it, and how funding priorities will be structured—for example, whether allocations will be categorised by science, management, skills or fleet support —so that coastal communities like mine can prepare credible and well-targeted bids?
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is speaking with real expertise and personal experience. As the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee mentioned, we had the chance to visit Brixham, where we heard at first hand that Government funding for fleets has often been focused on keeping old vessels in service, some of which are 60 years old. They may have upgraded equipment that can boost catch values, but then the crew are stuck with outdated and substandard living quarters. Those we met are calling for the growth fund to pay towards new vessels that could massively improve both profitability and quality of life for crews. Cannock Chase is about as far from the sea as a constituency can be, but even I can see the logic of that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far more efficient and impactful for us to use the funding in that way?
Anna Gelderd
My hon. Friend raises a really important point, and I am grateful to him for referencing my part of the world.
Dr Simon Thomas and Dr Bryce Stewart are doing brilliant work locally with fishermen. Their latest report was published just this morning. I will happily share it with Members here, and with the Minister, and I can support a meeting with them, at which Members can learn more about this work and the leading research coming out of south-east Cornwall and the south-west, particularly on pollack fishing.
One challenge that our most sustainable fishermen face is the allocation of pollack quota. Rod-and-line fishermen, many of them in boats that are under 10 metres, use one of the most selective and low-impact methods available, yet they are restricted to around 200 kilos a month. That does not even cover genuine bycatch once the bass season opens. Without access to an additional pollock quota, these fishermen are left with no viable options unless they are fortunate enough to secure a tuna licence. A fair rebalancing of pollack quota towards this fleet would support sustainability, reduce waste and keep our small boats working—something that the Minister is particularly passionate about.
The last Labour Government left the previous Conservative Government with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and a clear map for developing the healthy seas and sustainable stocks that we need. The fisheries Minister, hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), has inherited 14 years of poorly managed stocks, which have led to closures; reduced fishing of key species, such as pollack and bass; and an industry that has been restricted by home-grown red tape. That has left our inshore fleet more burdened, less viable, and in a more vulnerable state than ever before. I welcome the work being done to negotiate a new bespoke sanitary and phytosanitary deal that will remove mountains of that red tape, and allow our seafood industry to grow as trading becomes easier.
Fishermen in the south-west are also dealing with the unprecedented octopus bloom, which has had a devastating impact locally on crab, lobster and scallop fisheries. For many boats, this has translated into lost income, financial strain, and real concern for their wellbeing. Even if the bloom subsides, there is a serious risk that shellfish stocks will not recover quickly enough to support the potting fleet for many years. I welcome the work that local scientists and fishermen are doing together on this, including the report I mentioned. This is exactly why investment in industry-led science matters; it reflects real conditions on the water, and gives us advice grounded in lived experience.
As an independent coastal state, the UK has both the opportunity and responsibility to manage our own waters sustainably. Stronger protection of inshore grounds, including an engine power limit of 221 kW in the 6 to 12-mile zone, applied equally to UK and EU vessels, would safeguard smaller boats and reduce conflict. A clear limit on vessel size inside the 12-mile zone would reflect a well-established standard used by other nations, align with inshore fisheries and conservation authority practice, and give real protection to the smaller inshore boats active in areas like mine.
It is vital for our Government to turn this tide and make meaningful change, sort out the inherited mess, and make the most of our valuable national resources of fish and shellfish stocks. To that end, I wish to highlight six points. First, will the Government commission work on a fairer regime—one that moves away from a system where those able to buy and lease quota succeed, while smaller-scale fleets struggle? The regime needs to fund science, data collection, monitoring and enforcement, and to recognise the central role of our small boats in coastal communities. That would support a just transition by prioritising low-impact fishing, social value and the long-term stewardship of our seas, while aligning fishing activity with marine protected areas.
Secondly, will the Minister do all she can to get to the bottom of the inshore vessel monitoring and catch app failures that occurred due to the last Government’s red tape? The industry warned that the inshore vessel monitoring system was not robust, and that the kit was not fit for purpose. Years later, one device is still not working as it should. While the monitoring kit and the catch app continue to fail, the stress and frustration for fishermen grows. At the very least, we need a clear plan for those systems, and a timetable for fixing them. I would be very grateful if the Minister could set that out.
Too much of our commercial stock is data-deficient. That has created uncertainty, which hits small-scale fishermen the hardest. We already expect our fishermen to provide extensive data on location, catch, size and value, but that information is not being fully used. The consequences of overfishing, illegal discarding and pressure from exceeded quota limits damage the marine environment and undermine responsible fishermen. That is why data and science, though perhaps not the most exciting part of our debate, really matter. I urge the Minister to look seriously at how artificial intelligence can be used to unlock the value of the data that we already collect. I raised that point in a written question about fishing in areas such as the Cornish 6 to 12-mile zone, which local fishermen are worried about.
Fourthly, the pollack fisheries industry science partnership, led by Doctor Simon Thomas, is working with the Looe fishermen I mentioned earlier. It delivers robust evidence at a fraction of the cost of conventional studies, and has directly informed this year’s total allowable catch for pollack. By contrast, the previous Government spent about £450,000 on a close-kin DNA study that remains unpublished. Fisheries science partnerships, such as the pollack FISP, show that when fishermen are treated as partners, it is possible to get real-time data, trust, and importantly, value for money. I strongly support the use of the fishing and coastal growth fund for industry-led science projects like that, so that benefits stay in our ports, such as Looe, rather than being lost to leasing and speculation.
Fifthly, I congratulate Brixham and Newlyn fish markets on a successful year, and particularly thank them for accommodating the sale of landings from our fleets in Looe and Polperro. With the closure of Looe and then Plymouth fish markets, our fishermen face long and costly journeys across Cornwall or into Devon simply to sell their catch. At the tidal ports of Looe and Polperro, where return times shift daily, that creates real logistical pressure. I asked the Minister, when considering the fishing and coastal growth fund, to look at long-term support for securing routes to market for isolated ports. We have discussed that, and I thank her for her engagement.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting so many key issues, as well as developments and successes, in our fishing industry. With between 30 and 40 vessels, Portsmouth has a smaller fishing industry than it once did, although the industry still supplies many small businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to sustain our fishing industry in the United Kingdom, we must make sure that there are training routes for our young people?
Anna Gelderd
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I completely agree that young people in our coastal communities are the future of the industry and the heart of our communities, and we must do all we can to work with them to ensure that they have an industry that is sustainable for the future.
Sixthly, I welcome the Government’s commitment to the fishing and coastal growth fund and the fisheries and seafood scheme. I ask the Minister to ensure that the schemes work for small-scale, owner-operator fishermen. Larger businesses have the capacity to prepare their bids and projects, while those with small boats often miss out simply because they lack the administrative time or support. In previous years, we have seen schemes close before many fishermen could even submit an application, something that I know causes real concern and frustration in my community. The last Labour Government addressed that by funding regional support officers to help small fishing businesses develop their plans, gather quotes and complete bids. I urge the Minister to consider restoring those roles, or introducing a similar support system, and basing that support in areas like mine, where small-scale fleets are concentrated, so that help and funding reaches the intended fleets.
Finally, we import and eat almost double what we catch and export in seafood. Although we may be a nation of fish and chip lovers, we consume only 20% of what we catch. Given that some of the best seafood in the world comes from our waters, particularly those of South East Cornwall, we can all play a part by choosing locally caught fish at the tills and the checkouts, and by backing our local fishermen, not just with words but with our demand. I recognise those unsung heroes of our fishing industry: the families and loved ones who support the brave fishermen. The unsociable hours and the uncertain work schedules mean that the support of loved ones and families is vital to fishermen; their families keep the home fires burning, and we should pay tribute to all that they do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That has made me feel hungry. I call Andrew George.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), a Cornish colleague who is a very strong advocate for Looe and the fishing communities around her constituency’s coast. I want to emphasise a point that she made about the fishing and coastal growth fund.
As the Minister will be aware, the fishing industry is seeking not only engagement and consultation from the Government prior to the announcement, which we expect in April or May—perhaps she will tell us—but full consultation on the proposals. She knows that Cornish colleagues have endorsed and reinforced the case that the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation has made for a delegated fund of £10 million for small projects. We believe that that is a very good way of ensuring that funding gets to the places it might not reach if it were simply held and managed centrally.
I have been to quite a few debates like this one, including during my previous life in the House. I have been reflecting, particularly as the Government have published the animal welfare strategy, on my early days in the fishing industry. My family had a boat down in Mullion harbour. In the summer months, we used crab and lobster pots and did a bit of mackerel handlining to supplement the farm income. I remember that on the few occasions on which we were able to keep a lobster for ourselves rather than having to sell it, my parents debated the best way of killing it. Should we use the shock of putting it straight into boiling water—we are talking about the ’60s and ’70s, when we did not have the science behind us—or was it more humane to warm the water gently? I was only a child at the time, but I am sure that with the acute hearing of a child I sensed the lobsters screaming. At least we now have the science to tell us that lobsters are sentient beings.
I am pleased that the animal welfare strategy acknowledges that we need to move things forward. I welcome its commitment to publish guidance clarifying whether live boiling is an acceptable killing method and whether any legislative arrangements or amendments are needed in respect of the supply chain review. That is relevant to the industry, as an adjunct to this debate: it would be helpful to inform fishermen about how the supply chain will work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to the negotiations. At the end of last year, we were somewhat shocked that the Government accepted rules from the EU that will govern how British fishermen can work in British waters, and that it seems they were changed at short notice and without any consultation. These were technical measures that will affect British fishermen in their own waters.
Surely that runs contrary to everything that we were assured Brexit would give the UK—the sunlit uplands in which we would be able to decide for ourselves how we manage our stocks and manage our industry. Will the Minister explain how that happened? Why was the industry not consulted about those changes? Why did they happen at such short notice? Is it because we are outside the pre-negotiations that happen within the EU, during which proposals can be fine-tuned? Were we simply caught out at the last minute?
The hon. Member for South East Cornwall referred to the difficulties within the 6 to 12-mile zone and the fact that, in spite of everything, the Government have acceded by permitting foreign vessels with historical entitlement to continue fishing within the zone for another 12 years. She will know that the industry is arguing strongly, certainly in Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly. Why we do not apply to those waters the same 221 kW engine power limit that applies within the 6-mile limit? Why was that not proposed as a countermeasure to what was thrown on the table by the EU at the last minute? Doing so would have given the British Government a bargaining chip at that stage.
As we missed that opportunity, will the Minister assure us that she agrees that that would be a sensible method of going forward? After all, it protects the inshore fishing grounds; it safeguards, or helps to safeguard, the marine environment; it supports a viable inshore fishing industry; it reduces the impacts from larger vessels coming into the 6 to 12-mile zone; and it provides an enforceable management tool, because it is already established. If she or the Government failed to take the opportunity of introducing it then, does she now accept that it would be a good management tool? Will she ensure that she presses for it?
On the so-called benefits of the EU-UK trade negotiations, we were assured that the export of fish from this country would be made smoother, more transparent and easier, and that the administrative regulations applying to it would be less burdensome. When I have spoken in recent weeks to exporters in my constituency, they have told me the opposite: it has now become more burdensome. In the interests of time, I will write to the Minister rather than going through the technical detail now, but it is important that the sanitary and phytosanitary changes that have been brought in be properly understood. They seem to have created new impediments rather than resolving things.
The hon. Member for South East Cornwall referred to the importance of the next generation of fishermen. I have been a strong supporter of the Young Fishermen Network, which is based in Cornwall, since it was established. Matilda Phillips from my constituency has been pressing its case very strongly. I hope that the Minister will look at its manifesto.
There is a degree of absurdity here: we are recruiting new fishermen into the industry, but they are not allowed to go to sea under the age of 16. In the past, that was one way in which they could experience fishing. It can be done safely: one can regulate and put in the safeguards to ensure that it is done safely. I certainly went to sea well before I was 16. I did not go into the fishing industry, but I know many others who did. It encouraged them and provided them with a strong base. It also gave them ways to buy into the industry by getting in at the smaller, artisanal stage. Many of them, certainly from my area and my generation, became well-established members of the fishing community, from a very small base. I hope that that opportunity will still arise.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will consider how ultra low-impact fishing can be further incentivised and supported. I know one fisherman on St Agnes, one of the Isles of Scilly, who uses a sail—no engine and no plastic. He is doing his best to tick all the boxes and use a low-impact fishing method. Because he fishes for lobster, he has had a really difficult year as a result of the octopus bloom. He tells me that in spite of trying to do what society is encouraging fishermen to do, going the extra mile and being as sustainable as possible, he finds that he is over-regulated and that there are no incentives for him. I hope the Minister will be prepared to look at the case of Jof Hicks and others who are trying to do the right thing.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this debate and for restoring it to the main Chamber, as we have been asking for many years. I congratulate the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who co-chairs with me the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries—on securing the debate.
The Government have taken steps to bring greater stability and long-term thinking to the sector, but it has not been without controversy. They are continuing to allow EU vessels into UK waters for another decade-plus, with no protection for non-quota stocks. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made a good point about the speed of the negotiations, which arrived upon us with next to no engagement, either with the sector or with this House. In future negotiations it would be preferable, to say the least, if efforts were made to keep this House informed and if those who have an interest on behalf of their constituents were able to engage directly with those who are negotiating.
The agreement reached with the EU last year has provided at least some parameters of operation. There is an understanding of where the industry will stand until 2038. The new SPS agreement also has the potential to significantly reduce red tape for seafood exporters. Given that more than 60% of UK seafood by value is exported to the EU, that matters enormously to processors and exporters in places like Grimsby.
The UK seafood processing sector supports more than 17,000 full-time jobs, including over 5,500 in the Grimsby cluster alone. It is a modern, innovative industry that enables British-landed fish to reach domestic and international markets. We produce about 10 million fish fingers per week. We were on “Inside the Factory” on the BBC, and were very proud to see that. I will say a little more about the importance of fish fingers when I talk about the subject of British procurement, which was raised at Cabinet Office questions this morning.
Continued investment in modernisation, innovation, marketing and workforce skills will be essential. I welcome the leadership shown by the UK Seafood Federation, which is headquartered in my constituency, and particularly its focus on skills and careers as a priority for the coming years. In the circumstances, given all that has happened for the sector in recent years, I welcome the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund. It has to focus, as I think it does, on fishing communities to boost skills, support business security and business expansion, and promote fishing as a career. That is exactly what is needed to strengthen local economies, and I will of course be doing all that I can to ensure that Great Grimsby sees some benefit from that funding. I would welcome any update from the Minister on the details of that fund, such as who can apply, how they apply, what the criteria are and when we can expect to see all that detail.
There is still work to do in ensuring that fishing and seafood are fully recognised in wider Government thinking. Too often the sector is treated narrowly as a regulatory challenge rather than as part of the solution on food security, which I know is an important factor for the Government, and on regional growth and resilience. This week, the Government’s assessment of global biodiversity loss and national security rightly highlighted risks to food systems, but it did not reference fish or seafood at all. As an island nation, we should be more confident in recognising the necessity of properly managed fisheries to a resilient food system.
As a believer in the importance that offshore wind plays as a critical part of our energy system, and as well as being a representative of a historic fishing town, I am at the heart of the challenge when it comes to considering spatial squeeze. Steps have been taken to address conflicting industry interests. As I mentioned in my intervention earlier, the marine spatial prioritisation programme, introduced last summer, set out clear location-specific priorities for fisheries, nature and other uses of our seas, but fishers are still worried. They must be engaged with and listened to. They do not have the same power as those big wind development companies or those big communications companies that are laying cables. They often feel, and these feelings have been compounded over the years, that their needs are last on the list. The Minister has to focus her support on the needs of fishermen and on ensuring that their voices are heard against some of those other organisations, so they feel confident in the representation they have from this Government.
I said I would come back to fishfingers. We are gradually becoming a much more health-conscious nation, judging by the number of Members—not those in the Chamber today—who are on various weight-loss jabs. Health is much more at the front of people’s minds. Eating fish could help with the nation’s health. It is high in omega-3 and an excellent source of protein. How can we bring this into the UK economy through our public institutions? There is a good opportunity to build a healthier nation by integrating increased amounts of fish into our schools, the NHS and the Prison Service. That would help not only boost UK industry, but improve the brainpower and concentration of our young people and those who are unwell and need to heal quickly. We need to ensure that fish and fish products from around this country are included in the national food strategy.
I want to underline the importance of the work being led by the fisheries APPG on a national fisheries action plan, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned. Since leaving the EU, action has been taken to look at stock management, but there is no single and coherent strategy for the fishing and seafood sector as a whole. Responsibility seems to be spread across lots of Departments, making the system complex and fragmented. A clear, forward-looking plan could bring together issues of space, labour, skills and sustainability, providing the long-term direction that the industry needs, and I certainly look forward to engaging with the Minister on this as a cross-party group.
Fishing has a strong and important legacy and will always have a future in the UK. The foundations are being put in place, but increased ambition and enthusiastic partnership with coastal communities will be crucial in ensuring that these future opportunities do not slip through the net.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) raised the question of the correct method of dispatch for lobster. May I counsel him against the method that I tried, which was to pop them in the freezer? By the time I opened the door, they had eaten all my ice cream and three of my Fab lollies.
Even as we speak, chic Parisians are enjoying langoustines and coquille Saint-Jacques, perhaps with a crisp glass of Chablis—lucky them. That seafood almost certainly comes from the pristine waters of Scotland, but one of the difficulties we face in getting that seafood into France via Boulogne is red tape, and this is where the Government should step in. That red tape is blamed on Brexit. In fact, it comes from the far side of the short strait. This is a difficulty created by the French—perhaps because of protectionist ideas, who knows?—but it should not take an entire renegotiation of the SPS agreement to get this sorted out. We could have this changed and changed quickly.
The other danger with the renegotiation of an SPS deal is that it may have an impact on the free trade agreements we are doing around the world. We have recently signed one with India, for instance. The comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, the CPTPP—which is easy for me to say; we need a better name for this—could be imperilled by effectively reducing ourselves to rule-takers rather than rule-makers with a new SPS deal.
The other issue that many of our fragile coastal communities face is that they have full employment. Going to sea is not forever. I speak as the son of a marine engineer—I, meanwhile, get seasick in the bath, so I would certainly not want to go aboard a fishing boat. As we have heard, it is an exceptionally dangerous occupation and, even at the best of times, is difficult and hard work. The Home Office has a role here because it is exceptionally difficult to fulfil the requirements to bring in from elsewhere the workers who are crucial to this industry. I wonder if the Minister might touch on this—I appreciate it is a different Department—because we need some simplification of the rules and a realisation that they are making things exceptionally difficult for sometimes long-established businesses that should have a great future.
Again, touching on that red tape issue, one of the seafood producers in my constituency, West Coast Sea Products from Kirkcudbright, is facing difficulty even now with getting scallops into France—not because the quality of its product is anything less than exemplary, but, again, because of the rules and the difficulties being placed in its way, not by Brexit, as I say, but by the French themselves. Perhaps we could hear something on that, and perhaps we might be able to unblock this logjam.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the Backbench Business Committee for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. I pay tribute to all those who have cast a net, hauled a creel or pulled on a mussel rope to sustain us from the seas.
We have been fishing the waters around our islands for millennia. Just like the right hon. Member’s constituency, island life in the Western Isles is still shaped by the rhythms of the sea. The fishing fleet in the islands, while a shadow of the fleet that sustained the international herring industry in the early 20th century, is still a mainstay of the economy. Less than two years ago, these small fishing communities saw off an existential threat from the SNP and Green Scottish Government, which would have effectively wiped out the industry.
The hated highly protected marine area proposals, which would have closed 10% of Scottish waters, were seen off by protests and songs by Skipinnish and Vatersay fisherman Donald Francis MacNeil, but there is a lingering suspicion that the agenda has not gone away. Since the collapse of HPMAs, there have been fears that the existing marine protected areas and other designations will become pegs on which further restrictions could be hung. The rebranding of HPMAs, without the colourful measures of banning canoeing and paddleboarding, could be a danger. It is understood that the Scottish Government will be consulting on 173 sites. Although the Outer Hebrides sites have not been confirmed, it is expected that up to 20% of those total sites may be in Hebridean waters.
There are a couple of lessons to be learned from the HPMA debacle. The first, for anyone across the UK tempted to back the Greens today, tomorrow or next May, is that the combination of Greens and SNP in Scotland has set back marine conservation by a decade and a half at least. The other is that, if we are to sustain the fishing industry in communities such as mine, we need to end uncertainty. To ensure conservation, we need conversation. We need talks about sustainable management with the fishing industry and fishing communities—the experts on sustainability—on what is essentially their self-interest. Nobody knows how to responsibly steward our waters better than the fishermen themselves.
There is powerful evidence from my constituency that self-imposed controls by the community itself increase the value of landings. In the last year, the value of landings in the Western Isles has gone up to £16 million—a 4% rise—and that increase in value is the result of pot limitation efforts and various other measures, including banning larger vivier crab vessels from operating within six miles. Those statistics demonstrate what folly there was in trying to impose top-down conservation measures. When the local fishing fleet provides the conservation measures, the dividends are obvious.
The majority of income generated by Western Isles boats comes from the prawn sector, at £9 million. Scallops catches were down 14%, but nephrop landings were up by 25%, mostly due to the presence of processing in the islands. The Macduff Shellfish factory in Stornoway, which has attracted more boats, and there are other processors in the islands, but they face massive logistical barriers not just in getting to the continent, but in getting to the mainland in the first place, thanks again to the ferry debacle that the SNP presided over.
As well as successes, there are major challenges. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) hinted at the problems of recruitment to the sector; in an area such as mine, where depopulation and demographics leave a “doughnut hole” where the working-age population should be, that is a huge challenge. The proposals by the Migration Advisory Committee on skilled worker visa changes would have a profound effect on recruitment to the industry. If overseas hiring for fishing roles ends in December 2026, parts of the country—including mine—would be significantly impacted. While that is not this Minister’s Department, her support and the Government’s support in flexing those requirements would be appreciated.
The effect on the sector is quite obvious. A skipper from the Western Isles has been in touch with me recently to say that seven years ago he had a local crew of seven, but he is now forced to employ three crewmembers from Ghana. He and his son now skipper the vessel back to back in order to fish at every opportunity and ensure that they pay their foreign crews the right wages—considerably more than he or his son take home themselves. That is a challenge facing the local fishing fleet, but it is not the only one; others include high fuel costs, access to markets and sometimes red tape from Whitehall itself.
Again, this is not the Minister’s Department, but the Western Isles council, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, and, I suspect, other local authorities across our coastal communities, have faced a recent challenge from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, about which I have written to the Treasury. The council may lose its authority as a registered dealer of controlled oils, supplying 14 fishery piers across the 10-island chain that makes up the Western Isles. Those sites are in remote location, which, combined with the physical geography and the need to have fuel supplies available out of normal hours, means that the sites cannot possibly be physically or remotely monitored, as HMRC says they have to be. The council has been informed that, unless the sites are monitored and HMRC is satisfied that all sales are for legitimate licensed use, the sites and the licences may not be approved.
We see there, as we saw with conservation measures, the disconnect that often exists between bureaucracy and the reality of island and fishing communities. I welcome the Government’s £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund and regret, as I said in an intervention earlier, that a direct proportion is not going where it should be—to Scotland, where a large part of the UK’s fishing effort is—because the Scottish Government demanded control of the fund without agreeing a mechanism beyond the Barnett formula.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), who is no longer in her place, that that fishing and coastal growth fund should be directed towards the recruitment of new entrants and young people into the industry. There are commendable efforts in the Western Isles to get young people into the industry, with some success, but our populations are so small that they can only go so far. That fund should be directed towards small, inshore coastal communities, to help to revive them and those coastal economies, rather than being handed out to the mackerel millionaires or the quota barons who currently rule the oceans.
Fishing quotas themselves, which could be the subject of a whole other debate, should serve the public good, not narrow interests. If we are serious about the future of the seas and our coastal communities, quotas must be looked at again. They should have a social value and be aimed at the long-term benefit and sustainability of our coastal communities.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for applying for this debate, those hon. Members who supported his application, and the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time on this important subject. However, I regret that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) used so much of their time to attack the SNP Scottish Government. The plain fact of the matter is that I am elected, as are they, to deal with matters in this place. My advice to them is: if you are so concerned about Scottish matters in Holyrood, please stand for election there.
I want to give some context before I deal with those matters that are relevant to Westminster.
Seamus Logan
No, not yet. I may allow interventions later, but I want to get to the second paragraph of my speech first.
Fishing is an incredibly important livelihood for many of my constituents. Fraserburgh and Peterhead ports are among the largest fishing ports in Europe in terms of the tonnage and value they consistently bring in. Across Scotland, the Scottish Government’s Scottish sea fisheries statistics show that the value of the Scottish fishing industry in 2024 was £756 million—the highest in the past 10 years. Scotland’s sea area is six times larger than our land area and accounts for 63% of the UK’s exclusive economic zone. It is therefore no surprise that Scotland accounts for the largest part of the UK’s fishing industry, generally representing around 60% of total UK landings by both tonnage and value.
The industry is obviously important to Scotland’s rural and coastal communities; it is a key part of Scotland’s food economy and provides employment all around our coast. The issue of this debate is crucial to my constituents—but, regrettably, the decisions taken by the Westminster Government regarding the Scottish fishing industry are regarded by those constituents as treacherous. First, we had the EU-UK agreement, announced last year, which saw fishing access arrangements extended for 12 years, rather than the preferred annual renegotiation that would have ensured better leverage for fishers. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation described this decision as “disastrous” for Scottish farming and described the UK Government’s view as being that the fishing industry is “expendable”. The Prime Minister said that this UK-EU deal was a “win-win”, but that characterisation is risible.
Then, as if to pour salt in the wound, the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund allocations saw Scotland receiving just £28 million over 12 years, or just over £2.3 million a year—7.8% of the fund. How on earth is that approach sustainable? It is an unmitigated disaster for Scottish fishers. Trading away access to Scottish waters and refusing to mitigate that policy through the coastal growth fund is simply creating the conditions for the Scottish fishing industry to fail. A sector worth £756 million to the Scottish economy faces changed conditions with no consultation, as Members have acknowledged, mitigated by a pitiful amount from this UK Government.
The Scottish Government were sidelined in the allocation of the coastal growth fund, with the pathetic excuse that they had requested a devolved approach. Now we learn from the Fishing News that the application of the Barnett formula was because of a decision by the Treasury to baseline the marine allocation for 2024-25, rather than ringfencing it. To clear this up for Members who commented on it, at no point did the Scottish Government say that the allocation should be Barnettised; they simply asked for the devolution of the decision making on that fund to Scotland.
Mr Carmichael
Well, what on earth did they expect? They asked for devolution. With devolution comes Barnettisation. Is the hon. Member going to stand there and tell us that the SNP Government did ask for the rebasing that we have seen previously? I have certainly never heard that suggested, and we have taken evidence on this in the Select Committee.
Seamus Logan
I want to address that now. Under the European maritime and fisheries fund, when we were part of the European Union, the UK received approximately £207 million over six years, of which Scotland received 46%—46%, not 7.8%. That is why Scotland wanted that matter devolved: so that we could properly support the Scottish fishing industry, in the same way that the European Union and the UK did in the past. Why change the approach?
Torcuil Crichton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and politely decline his offer to stand for the Scottish Parliament, because Na h-Eileanan an Iar has an excellent candidate in Donald MacKinnon. Next May he will wipe out the SNP and give us a real voice for the islands, which have not been listened to in 18 years.
We have much to agree on when it comes to the share of the fishing and coastal growth fund, and I remind the hon. Member that the fund will be there for a decade. What is past is past, and without rancour, we could work together through the fisheries APPG and other organisations to ensure that more of this fund goes to our coastal communities, and particularly our fragile inshore coastal communities that need support—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Interventions should not be that long.
Seamus Logan
The hon. Member will know that, in reality, we do work very well together in the APPG under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). I accept the point about the fishing and coastal growth fund. I think he agrees with me that we need a review of that decision, but I will come back to that later.
Why did the Westminster Government change the approach and Barnettise the formula? Many of my constituents think it is because there are no votes for Labour and there is no prospect of ever winning another seat north of the Tay, alongside perhaps the seat of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. I can tell the Minister that that is not going to change any time soon with this approach, because this Government are stealing our money to prop up their failing support in coastal communities in England.
A recent freedom of information request revealed that the Secretary of State for Scotland had made no effort—zero effort—to lobby the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss a fairer and proportionate allocation, given Scotland’s massive contribution to our food sector. What is the point of the UK Government’s Scotland Office if it does not stand up for Scotland?
Finally, as if the above were not enough, visa restrictions by the Home Office have been suffocating the growth of fishing in Scotland. Key sector stakeholders have raised concerns about the changes to visas coming into force at the end of this year and the impact this will have, particularly on processing. Their concerns about visa provision extend to hiring workers for operations within the 12 nautical mile limit, given the overlap in fishing grounds. I appreciate that this is not within the Minister’s brief, but I would be grateful for clarity from her, or at least for her to tell us that she is lobbying the Home Office on this point, so that people and industries in my constituency can thrive and contribute to our growing economy. But please do not try to tell us that we need to hire local people. This mythical workforce sitting at home twiddling their thumbs simply does not exist. We are at full employment in my constituency, and efforts to recruit young people into this industry are simply not working—just ask Mike Park at the Scottish White Fish Producers Association.
The future of fishing in Scotland is at a precarious stage, and I want to use this opportunity to plead with the UK Government: please listen to the Scottish Government, to the Scottish fishing industry and to fishermen and women to get this right. One more U-turn will not make much difference to this Government, considering the number they have already made, but it will make the world of difference to fishing and coastal communities in Scotland. It is not too late to give Scotland a fair deal.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for applying for today’s very important debate. I would like to start by paying tribute to the fishermen and women of Bridlington and Hornsea in my constituency and to the RNLI and inshore rescue teams who keep our fishermen safe right across the UK.
The House will be well aware that Bridlington is the lobster capital of Europe, landing over 300 tonnes every year, and the largest shellfish landing port in the UK. I hope that next time the Minister is back in Brid, she has the opportunity to sample some of our fine fresh seafood at Salt on the Harbour or the Old Lifeboat Station opposite the Spa.
I welcome the fishing and coastal growth fund, but I caution that it is £360 million over 12 years, which is £30 million a year. In a harbour like Bridlington, the cost of a major upgrade, or in fact just normal maintenance to harbour walls, often runs into millions of pounds. I fear that we could quickly run out of money for major capital projects, but I hope that those capital projects can apply to this fund and that Bridlington will be able to benefit from it. I also hope that we will be able to address the skills issues, which are key for the fishing industry. We need to attract school leavers into the industry and ensure we have the next generation of people out there at sea; this is a real problem up and down the country at the moment.
Another issue I would like to talk about is spatial squeeze. The Government are consulting on a land use framework, which is welcome, but we need something similar for the marine environment. We have heard from Members today about the challenges of juggling space for renewable energy, and there are very large offshore wind farms in Hornsea.
John Cooper
Is my hon. Friend surprised to hear that the SNP denies the existence of spatial squeeze, and advisers told senior figures in the Government not to talk about spatial squeeze? Spatial squeeze is real. I return to his point about Bridlington being the lobster capital of Europe. We do not have to divide on this, but I think he will find that it is, in fact, Port William.
Charlie Dewhirst
On that second point, we will have to agree to disagree, but my hon. Friend is right in terms of spatial squeeze. If it is not an issue, I do not understand why it takes up so much of the briefing from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations; they, I suspect, are the real experts in this area.
I turn to the EU deal and the frustration that our fishing industry has been sold out for the next 12 years in return for an SPS deal that has yet to be negotiated. I fear that things have got worse since that announcement was made. In fact, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has contacted MPs to say:
“In last year’s annual negotiations between the UK and the EU that concluded last December, something new happened that has deeply alarmed UK fishermen. As well as deciding fish quotas for 2026 as expected, the two sides also agreed new technical fisheries management rules for their respective national waters. We are told that the EU proposed these measures and that the UK negotiating team was blindsided by their inclusion in the talks. Nevertheless, they agreed to them. Rules that govern how British fishermen can work in British waters were changed, at short notice and without consultation, at the request of the EU. This is unprecedented.”
It went on to say:
“It was startling to learn… that the collaborative, evidence-based process that we all thought we were working within had been set aside in favour of a bargain struck between civil servants over a few days in London and Brussels. More troubling still, the rules will be more lenient in EU waters.”
That says to me, “sell out again”, and it sets a direction of travel as we negotiate an SPS deal with the European Union. It is clear that we are negotiating from a very weak position, and are willing to do whatever the EU pleases to have a deal done by the end of this year. This Government could perhaps learn lessons from the previous one about setting false deadlines for trade negotiations. I am happy to admit that we made mistakes in the early days post Brexit, and I caution against doing the same now.
It would be remiss of me not to touch on bottom-trawling. The issue has become a focus for anti-fishing groups, but if it were to be banned across our marine protected areas, that would destroy the industry overnight and decimate certain coastal communities. Much of the campaign against it misrepresents the industry; it is not as damaging as some organisations say it is. I hope that the Minister will take up the issue with the industry, and will ensure that bottom-trawling is properly represented in any negotiations about the use of that technique.
In conclusion, I am proud to represent such a successful fishing industry. I know that Bridlington is close to the Minister’s heart, and I would love the opportunity to meet her, perhaps even in Bridlington, and local fishermen to discuss the future of the industry, so that we do what we can, together, to support the lobster capital of Europe.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for setting the scene so incredibly well. I envy his knowledge of fishing, and I am always pleased to support him in a secondary role in such debates. I represent Strangford in Northern Ireland. It has a strong fishing community, particularly in Portavogie, and I wish to relay a number of issues that have been raised with me. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place—she will know that—and I hope that when I ask her a question, she will be kind and will accede to that request; it is perhaps similar to questions that others have asked. I give special thanks to Dr Lynn Gilmore, who is in charge of the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation. She is doing extremely well. I am reminded of Margaret Thatcher’s saying:
“if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.”
We have a woman chief executive of the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation, and I look forward to deliberating with her, and with the Minister.
As the House will be aware, the seafood industry in Northern Ireland plays a vital role in supporting the economies of our coastal communities. In 2023, the fishing fleet comprised 211 registered vessels, and employed 445 people. The majority of its vessels fish in the Irish sea, and operate from the three main ports: Portavogie in my constituency; Ardglass; and Kilkeel. The Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation represents those three ports, as well as other places. Trawlers of over 10 metres, mainly targeting nephrops, account for around half the fleet, and today at least 70% of the nephrops fleet is reliant on a non-EU migrant crew. That is one of the highest rates in the United Kingdom fishing industry. Those crews form an important part of the workforce. Recent data shows that approximately 50,500 tonnes of fish and shellfish were landed by the Northern Irish fleet, worth £80 million. Nephrops accounted for 46% of landings by value. I want to put those stats on record, because it is important to understand the value of the fishing sector in Northern Ireland, particularly to my constituents.
The Northern Ireland fishing sector also supports 18 seafood processing operators, which generated a further £62 million in 2023 and support 570 full-time jobs. However, those numbers belie the true value of the industry, which is in its cultural and historic importance—others have referred to that—and the skills handed down through generations, because the pride that our communities take in the fishing industry is immeasurable. Sadly, all that is being threatened by issues outside the control of the men and women who risk their lives to put delicious local seafood on our plates. The Northern Irish fishing industry, so valuable to our economy and our coastal communities, is facing unprecedented challenges. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) outlined the issues facing crew, as did the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I suspect other Members will raise that issue, as it is a key point to underline.
Foremost among those issues are matters relating to visas for overseas crew. In a recent letter to the Minister for migration and citizenship, the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), Northern Ireland industry leaders described the cliff edge that they face when it comes to skilled worker visas. Those will become unavailable to the fishing industry beyond 2026—that is really worrying—except for during a limited period of time in which the visas of crew already working in the industry can be renewed. Industry leaders also highlighted escalating salary thresholds—again, those have been a bugbear for some time—and the English language requirements in the industry, and they requested an urgent meeting with the Minister to discuss those issues. If such issues are not addressed, that could result in a loss of up to 70% of crew on Northern Ireland vessels, potentially tying up almost 100% of the Northern Ireland nephrops fleet within a few short years. We are in the last chance saloon, and there will be cascading impacts on processing businesses and fishing communities, and the potential for a loss of workforce continuity and traditional, generational knowledge.
The industry has repeatedly requested a bespoke visa for fishing, as it ramps up efforts to recruit more local workers into the industry. At the time, the Minister’s response offered nothing to industry. It was in part contradictory, and it ended with that Minister declining to meet Northern Ireland industry leaders to hear their concerns. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs and I have had many discussions, and have worked together on many things, and she has always been responsive. I ask her and the Government to please have a heart when it comes to the fishing industry. Could I meet her and the Home Secretary, to go into the detail of what is needed to save the fishing industry? I request that meeting urgently; that is my major request to the Minister, as this issue is really important to the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation and the fishing fleet.
Those in fishing occupations will no longer be eligible for the skilled worker visa, and post 2026, no visa route will exist for recruiting foreign deckhands. That eliminates the only legal pathway for vessels to get the crew needed to operate inside the 12 nautical mile zone. The importance of this cannot be underlined enough. The fishing industry needs a dedicated immigration route for fishing crew post 2026, preferably in the form of a bespoke visa. That would protect British businesses while a recruitment drive sought to source more domestic labour for the fishing industry in the long term.
I remember a few years ago an advert was put in a European fishing magazine. It sought to recruit people from Europe to the fishing industry. One hundred people replied to that advert; 10 people expressed a further interest; and only one turned up for the interview. I make that point because sometimes, when we looked around the United Kingdom, and across the EU at the time, we saw a potential workforce, but it just was not there. Northern Ireland industry wants an opportunity to brief the Minister and highlight industry concerns that if nothing is done in the short to medium term, British businesses will fail. It is that straightforward.
The Northern Ireland fishing industry is facing an unsustainable decrease in the Irish sea’s available fishing grounds through expanding offshore marine protected areas, proposed bans on bottom-towed gear, and rapid offshore renewable development. Unlike in agriculture, fishermen do not hold property rights to their areas of food production—that is a fact; it is not like farming—so fishing is an easy target for displacement. Additionally, fishing areas have no statutory basis for protection, unlike marine protected areas, or offshore renewable developments. The combined effect of the spatial restrictions already in place or under development will be to threaten the operational and financial viability of the Northern Ireland fleet.
The industry has lost 4,728 km of fishing grounds in the Irish sea over the past couple of decades—that is around three times the size of London. The implementation of management measures in MPAs in the Northern Ireland offshore area, and additional offshore renewable energy zones in the same constrained Irish sea region, threaten a further reduction in fishing grounds—and there could be more. We need to see evidence-based decision making, and site-specific management on the principle of sustainable use, rather than blanket spatial bans for unknown or uncertain environmental benefits.
Core to that must be the designation of Northern Ireland fishing organisations as statutory consultees in marine planning. That brings me to my second ask: can the Northern Ireland fishing organisations be allowed to play their part, and be involved in the discussion about marine planning? There should be statutory consideration given to the impacts of displacement of fishing effort before any area becomes unavailable for fishing. That would enable the Northern Ireland fishing sector to have an impact.
To sum up, the Northern Ireland fishing industry seeks Government support for a balanced planning system that protects fishing as a legitimate, food-producing industry that is vital to the UK’s people, economy and national food security. Having already faced decades of disruption, reduced fishing grounds, lack of local labour and increasingly unpredictable quotas, fishing communities in Northern Ireland now face a series of simultaneous pressures that threaten their long-term viability.
Confronted with such changes, fishermen are left with profound uncertainties that accentuate financial stress, as well as mental health issues, for them and their families. In every aspect of policy, from quotas and immigration to marine protected areas and offshore wind developments, fishermen are under pressure. The fishing industry has shown over many years that it is prepared to work constructively with government, and it is doing so. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland set that point down as a marker. The fishing sector wants to work with the Government. It wants to protect the seas that it is fishing in, because they have to be sustainable. That is what the sector is about, and I hope that the Government wish to work with the sector.
The sector has responded positively to scientific recommendations, increased levels of gear selectivity to reduce impacts on the environment, and operates within one of the most heavily regulated fishing regimes in the world. Before anything else in the Irish sea, at the beginning of time, there was fishing. When God created the world, he created the Irish sea and he created fishing—that was before everything else happened. Our communities, who are ever mindful of that, were the original stakeholders. I think I quote the Bible accurately when I say, “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth, and he created the sea.”
Food security, as well as economic security, will depend on being able to maintain a sustainable fishing industry in Northern Ireland. With the right foresight and committed cross-government policy, the industry will be able to sustain itself, remain productive and remain the cornerstone of communities that live along our coast, as it has been since the beginning of time. If we ignore the concerns of Northern Ireland’s fishing communities, a rich heritage could be lost that would be irreplaceable.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am an unpaid director of the Newhaven Fishing community interest company. As such, I see at first hand what is happening to our local fishing industry, and I rise to talk specifically about the impact on our town.
In Newhaven, we have a small but long-standing fleet, and our fishing heritage is under threat. We have between 15 and 20 active vessels working out of Newhaven, catching sole, plaice, brill, turbot and other bits and pieces off our Sussex coast. Much of that fish goes elsewhere for processing, to all corners of the UK and beyond, before it ends up coming back to our plates. We are exporting those jobs, increasing emissions and missing the chance to build our local economy and invest in a small part of the Government’s growth agenda. I believe that has to change.
We want our fish processed locally, and jobs created in coastal communities, rather than fish being shipped abroad and coming back again—and sometimes then going back abroad and back here once more. The recent plans to bring processing back to Newhaven are exactly what we should be doing nationwide, but that needs long-term commitment from the Government, if it is to stick.
In the meantime, we are losing our fishing community. The charter boat fleet that historically brought customers to Newhaven’s tackle shops, pubs and restaurants all year around has almost completely disappeared. A constituent of mine runs the last charter company in Newhaven. During recent works at the port, he was forced to relocate temporarily, but was promised that he could return. Now he has been told that he cannot come back, despite Government funding for a new pontoon, supposedly for the fishing fleet. That is the kind of bureaucratic nonsense that puts marginal businesses into receivership and brings generational businesses, like his and many others in our town, to an end, in some cases after decades or even hundreds of years of operation. When we invest in coastal infrastructure, it should support the entire fishing community, including commercial vessels and charter boats that bring economic activity to our towns. Both are vital to a thriving coastal economy.
We have been successful in attracting Government investment to support the local fishing industry in Newhaven, with some £12 million for new landing stages, and for processing and other facilities in the town. My thanks go to Lewes district council and my predecessor, Maria Caulfield, who supported the bid for that funding, which has been essential to giving our fishing industry in Newhaven a chance—just a chance—of surviving and thriving in the future. However, we need to do far more to support our fishing businesses if they are to be sustainable in the long term.
Here is what is really at stake. Without new people entering the industry, small independent businesses will disappear. They will be replaced by massive multinational companies and EU mega-trawlers that disrupt our wildlife, deplete our fish stocks and send their catches to distant markets. In our case, many are flagged to the Netherlands. We will lose local jobs and an industry on which communities like ours depend.
Our local fishing businesses are largely family affairs, with one generation taking on the business from another. It is a tough and sometimes very dangerous job. In November 2020, our community was shocked to wake up to the news that the Joanna C trawler had sunk off Newhaven, tragically taking the lives of two fishermen. It was a reminder of the risks that our fishing boats taking every day in unpredictable seas. I should take a moment to pay tribute to our local Royal National Lifeboat Institution crews, based out of Newhaven, and the volunteers at our local Coastwatch who do incredible work trying to keep our fishermen and other sailors safe.
The Government must acknowledge that support for small fishing businesses to encourage more young people to see fishing as an attractive career choice is essential for the future vibrancy of the industry. There is a real danger that we will continue to fund an industry that simply does not have the people to continue it, and it will end up withering on the vine.
We want a different future for the industry. We need to slash the red tape that is strangling our fishing industry and invest in coastal infrastructure—not just by building pontoons, although that is important for our town, but by ensuring that our infrastructure serves the communities that it is meant to support. We need to give coastal towns the power and resources to develop their fishing economies and attract young workers, working in concert with local schools and colleges to build a skills base for the future, not just for our fishing industry but in many of our deprived coastal communities, where a skills base is lacking. They could take advantage of some of the opportunities being created by investments in our local fishing industry and others.
We must put sustainability at the heart of everything we do. We need to work hand in glove with the fishing industry to look carefully at the impact on marine protected areas and ensure that protections for sustainability do not cause catastrophic harm for the businesses that we seek to support.
We must rebuild depleted fish stocks. In the distance, we can often see massive Dutch trawlers operating off our coast. They hoover fish out of the sea and deplete stocks, meaning that our own fishermen—predominantly line-and-pole fishermen—cannot catch anything when they go out to fish. That is soul-destroying for people who are already in a very challenging industry.
We must ensure that fishing stock negotiations after 2026 get proper democratic scrutiny, as several hon. Members have mentioned. That is because the Conservatives’ Brexit threw our industry into chaos. Unfortunately, the Government let that happen again when they extended fishing rights to the EU for 10 more years—and for what? Nothing but some general commitments to negotiate further down the line.
Newhaven has fished its waters since the 1580s. Some fishing families have worked there for over 200 years; indeed, some of their names are known to pretty much everybody in the town. It is a close-knit community. We have local fish shops, plans for new restaurants and a community that wants to buy local catch, but right now we have a local fleet that is struggling even to stay in business.
My coastal communities are not an afterthought. They are the frontline of our food security, our environmental stewardship and our cultural heritage. We must deliver a fair deal for fishers, with real investment and sustainable practices, working with Government. I would be remiss not to take the opportunity to extend the Minister an invitation to come down to Sussex by the sea and visit our fleet in Newhaven.
Too often, very small fleets like ours can be overlooked in discussions about the fishing industry. In his excellent introductory speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned how fishing is sometimes treated as a homogeneous industry in which all areas are the same. Our small fishing fleet is as worthy of protection as any other, but it can be easily overlooked in wider discussions about the larger industry. I want communities like Newhaven’s to have the power to control their own future, with a thriving fishing industry at its heart.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before the Front-Bench speeches begin, may I extend a warm welcome to the Minister of Education in Ontario, who has been in the Chamber listening to hon. Members’ contributions? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate and on his powerful speech. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for today’s debate.
The UK’s fishing industry is central to our national economy. It contributes more than £1.4 billion annually and supports more than 11,000 fishers. However, despite the sector’s economic value, the industry post Brexit continues to face numerous challenges. It has insufficient Government support and has been left to fight an uphill battle against environmental neglect and regulatory stagnation. The previous Government’s ill-conceived Brexit deal has had a negative impact on the UK fishing industry and has created deep uncertainty about its future. Our fishing communities feel unrepresented and anxious about the industry’s future economic viability.
Within the terms of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement post-Brexit, UK fishing became subject to a number of regulations. It is unbelievable that the current Government’s Ministers have, in effect, agreed to continue with the Conservative plan for fishing, subjecting the industry to another 12 years of neglect through the agreement reached at last May’s UK-EU reset summit, as EU boats will now have access to our waters until 2038. The Liberal Democrats hoped that the summit would provide the opportunity for a reset that would benefit our fishing industry, but it just got more of the same. We believe that if the Government had been more ambitious and sought to secure a new customs union, better benefits would have been secured for our fishing industry.
Although it is positive that a comprehensive agreement has been secured across trade and defence, the Government must work with our fishing industry to understand the impact that the extension will have. Greater co-operation is necessary, given that the raft of regulatory changes to the EU applies to all vessels, but fishers do not feel supported by the Government or by the Marine Management Organisation, which gave the industry just five days’ notice of changes. Poor communication regarding new gear marking and catch reporting has only furthered confusion and uncertainty in the industry.
The sewage scandal that has blighted our waters for far too long urgently needs addressing. Although Glastonbury and Somerton is landlocked, it is home to diverse watercourses, including the Rivers Brue and Parrett, which offer excellent fishing for local anglers. Upstream towards Bruton, the River Brue supports local trout fishing, while further downstream around Glastonbury and towards Highbridge, the River Parrett is dominated by coarse fishing such as for roach, chub, perch and pike. Both rivers are valued ecological areas for our local communities and our region’s biodiversity, but our watercourses have not been left untouched by pollution, with the River Parrett in Langport experiencing 54 separate sewage spills in 2023, amounting to 453 hours of pollution. Devastatingly, in 2025 alone, all the water- courses in my constituency were subjected to more than 45,000 hours of pollution. Across the wider—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will know that the debate is on the fishing industry, not on sewage pollution of rivers per se. Perhaps she would like to return to the subject of fishing.
Sarah Dyke
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The impact on coastal communities is even more severe and economically damaging. The House will know that fishing waters in Cornwall, including in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), have been greatly affected by pollution, with many forced to close after high levels of E. coli were found in locally sourced oysters and mussels. For local shellfish growers, the actions of unresponsive and irresponsible water companies have destroyed consumer confidence in locally sourced fish, decimating demand and threatening the viability of local producers across many coastal regions.
Despite the desperate pleas of our coastal communities, the inaction of both the previous Conservative Government and the current Labour Government has resulted in a shocking increase in pollution incidents, which were up 27% last year. The Liberal Democrats have been very clear that tougher regulations must be delivered to prevent raw sewage spillages into our waterways. The Government’s White Paper, which was published on Tuesday, contains some welcome measures, but it does not go far enough—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I will not make this point again. This is a debate on the fishing industry. The hon. Lady has made her point about pollution.
Sarah Dyke
Let me return briefly to Somerset—this is relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker. The European eel was once a key part of the county’s identity. It was so abundant that it even served as the local currency, and it was the most economically significant part of Somerset’s fishing sector. The presence of this keystone species is said to be the leading indicator for the health of our wetland, river and natural habitats.
Unsurprisingly, the European eel is currently deemed a critically endangered species, with a 90% drop in its population since the 1980s owing to habitat loss and migration barriers. The Somerset Eel Recovery Project, founded by Vanessa Becker- Hughes, is leading community efforts to restore the county’s local eel population through conservation and cultural efforts, but despite its best efforts, its work is not bringing the significant changes that it would like. Removing barriers and installing passes is essential for the species’ survival, which is dependent on migration. By balancing conservation efforts with sustainable fishing, we can secure the stability of the sector and more of us can enjoy the culinary delicacy that is eel.
Across the wider south-west, we are seeing a stark decline in fish species along our coastal areas. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), the octopus bloom of last year has led to an 80% decline in crab catch—a decline so significant that it is forcing local fishers to consider early retirement or career changes because they are unable to make ends meet. Fishers in South Devon and across the south-west need greater support from the Government to stay in business while they learn to adapt to these concerning ecological changes, and they require flexibility on catch licences in order to remain in business.
Last May, the Liberal Democrats welcomed the Government’s announcement of a £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund after the industry had been let down consistently by nearly a decade of successive Conservative Governments. The current Government must not follow the example of the Conservatives. For a lasting impact to be realised through greater investment, our coastal towns must be given a voice in how the money is spent.
This vital funding should not be spent on generic community assets such as benches and public facilities in coastal towns. It must be appropriately targeted to empower our fishing communities, providing them with greater powers and resources to invest in coastal infra- structure and services. Through delivering a comprehensive plan for spreading economic opportunity, the Liberal Democrats would ensure that the fund supports initiatives to enhance awareness of the career opportunities in the sector and strengthen skills to retain workers and, crucially, attract younger workers to support future growth.
It is clear that our fishing and coastal communities cannot afford another decade of neglect. The previous Conservative Government left our fishers in the lurch and hung out to dry, while the current Government have failed to grasp the opportunity to secure a genuine reset that would provide both stability and opportunity. Instead, they have chosen to continue with a botched Brexit deal for the industry until 2038. Our fishing industry deserves better.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I congratulate my friend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chair of the EFRA Select Committee, on securing this vital debate. I have a huge amount of respect for him, given his expertise in, and dedication to, these and other important areas.
We have heard many contributions from Members across the House today. The Chair of the Committee spoke passionately about issues such as spatial squeeze, and also talked about the imbalance in the situation with Norway. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about how dangerous a profession fishing is and the importance of people in this sector, as well as about the importance of data and science.
The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) talked about the importance of bringing the next generation into this profession. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) talked about the importance of fish for our food security; she also talked about spatial squeeze and about fish being an important part of a balanced, healthy diet for the UK population. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) talked about some of the key logjams of logistics, bureaucracy and red tape facing the sector, and about a pragmatic approach to workforce issues.
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) talked about some of the debates regarding the designation of marine protection areas, about conservation, and about striking accords on workforce issues. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) talked about the importance of the industry to his rural and coastal communities, and also highlighted workforce issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) again talked about spatial squeeze, the importance of the next generation, and flaws in the recent EU negotiations. I fear he was starting a bit of a lobster war with our hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway; I remind him that lobsters are indeed sentient creatures. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always a passionate advocate for his industries and communities in Northern Ireland, also talked about some of the key issues, including workforce issues and food security.
Finally, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about the significance of the fishing heritage in his community and its importance to his local economy.
Fishing has always been vital to the United Kingdom—it is the lifeblood of communities up and down this country, across all four nations of our UK. I pay tribute to the brave and hard-working fishermen and women, the processers, the transporters, the traders, and everyone else who does so much to harvest and deliver that precious food source, which is so vital to our food security and to local economies across the land. I also thank representative bodies such as the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation for all they do to champion and advocate for those vital industries. His Majesty’s official Opposition are committed to standing up for, and supporting, our coastal communities and fishing industries. As an independent, sovereign coastal nation, our fishing rights are a fundamental asset; we cannot weaken them, and they are crucial to maintaining our food security and our economy.
The previous Conservative Government made progress in making us an independent, sovereign coastal state, including through our work to secure the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement for fisheries in 2021. We used that agreement as a catalyst to secure £970 million in fishing opportunities by 2024 and an uplifted quota at a value of £146 million, including significant gains for the pelagic sector. The current Government had to renegotiate on quota and access under the terms of that agreement. Unfortunately, the fruits of the Government’s negotiation with the EU were somewhat spoiled. It was quite simply a sell-out that throws our fishing industry under the bus for the sake of closer ties to the EU. Industry representatives have described the deal in no uncertain terms as a “horror show”, and as giving away
“the best card that we still had”.
We Conservatives are fundamentally clear that we stand with all our hard-working fishermen and women, who will be significantly impacted and have their fishing capabilities restricted because of this retrograde deal.
Back in March, when it was first being seriously suggested in the public discourse that fishing rights might be bargained away for access to the European defence fund, I asked the then fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), to confirm that the Government would not capitulate on our fishing rights. The Minister responded that he was
“determined to get the best possible outcome for our fishing sector”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 366WH.]
Unfortunately, the Government caved in to pressure to seek closer ties with the EU at any cost. Worse still, we have learned that despite the Government caving in, the EU has still refused them those closer ties on defence. While nations as far afield as the Faroe Islands have the option of negotiating with the EU yearly to improve their lot when it comes to both quotas and access, the Government’s deal means that our fishing industry is locked into current arrangements for 12 years.
Seamus Logan
The shadow Minister is speaking about the European Union. Just today, I have heard about requests from the European Union regarding the size of fishing nets, which the British Government have apparently accepted without question. Is the shadow Minister aware of that?
Dr Hudson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. When requests like this come in, we have to take a very logical view across the United Kingdom and the UK Government have to be strong in their deliberations, because we have to make sure that our waters are protected.
The Leader of the Opposition explicitly set “no reduction in our fishing rights” as one of the five tests for this Government’s agreement with the EU. The Government have not even come close to meeting that test. His Majesty’s Opposition also note that in the most recent discussions, technical management rules were brought into the frame of negotiations for the first time. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East has intimated, that is a clear sign of the increasing influence the EU is starting to have as a result of these changes.
While of course we all welcome any funding to support the fishing sector and improve the welfare of coastal communities, the Government’s fishing and coastal growth fund was really just a sticking-plaster exercise—yes, it was a significant amount of money, but it was really to try to cover up their errors in their fishing policy so far. As the Minister will remember, when that fund was announced, I asked her to confirm any practical details of how the fund would be delivered; how it would support fishermen and women and coastal communities; and, importantly, whether the funding would be front-loaded, which is the only way that the Government can begin to repair some of the harm they have started to cause since taking office.
As I have said, we absolutely support any funding provided to fishing and coastal communities. When we were in Government, we brought in the £100 million UK seafood fund to support the future and sustainability of UK fisheries and the seafood sector, allocating funds for science, research, infrastructure, skills and training across the sector. Today, we have heard from Members across the House about the importance of data, research and science—we need to collect that, and we need to fund it. From the autumn Budget documents, we also know that the Government plan to spend £25 million in the financial year 2026-27, which is a small part of the £360 million in the fishing and coastal growth fund. They must provide that funding as soon as possible, in a way that makes an actual difference to fishermen and women and to coastal communities.
Speaking of the Budget, like most of the country, people in fishing and coastal communities will have been anxious about the autumn Budget and the changes it contained. We in the Opposition are concerned about the impact of the tourist tax on coastal communities that rely on tourism—that tax will serve a double blow on top of the difficulties the fishing industries and coastal communities have already faced. Owing to the Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions, employers have been left to make very difficult choices, such as refusing to hire new staff, freezing pay or—worst of all—letting people go. This is really hitting the fishing industries.
A scientific, evidence-based approach is non-negotiable if we are to ensure high ecological and environmental standards in fishing across all fishing countries, including the UK—standards that are paramount for sustaining our precious seas and oceans and ensuring responsible global trade. However, a delicate balance has to be struck. While ensuring ecological and environmental standards, we must also ensure that the fishing industries are able to survive and, indeed, thrive. When we talk about improving marine welfare and addressing some negative practices, we must be clear that fishermen and women in the UK are trying to act in the best interests of the ecosystem on which they depend. As we have heard from Members across the House, the experts on nurturing and protecting that precious resource are the people who fish it. Likewise, an evidence-based approach must be at the centre of the solution tackling spatial squeeze, which we have heard a lot about today.
It is vital, as we enhance our abilities to deliver clean energy, that offshore wind is delivered in the right way and in the right place, looking at all the evidence, including on how offshore wind impacts on the fishing industry, ecosystems and marine life. While the Marine Recovery Funds Regulations 2025, which came into force in December, compensate for environmental damage caused by offshore wind, they fail to compensate fishermen and women for any harm to their livelihoods done by offshore wind projects. That is just another missed opportunity to protect the industry by this Government. Unfortunately, it is their embedded approach at present.
Seafish’s recent report on employment in the fishing industry in 2024 showed an increasingly ageing demographic in the sector, with difficulties for many to access the skilled labour that fishing demands. Pretty much every speaker today talked about the importance of workforce moving forward. Without new fishermen and women, the industry will not have a future. Will the Minister please confirm what the Government are doing to tackle this existential threat to the industry?
Part of solving the problem must look at the practice of fishing itself, which is undeniably a dangerous and demanding industry. Financial instability, the tough conditions and the physical stress can have a significant impact on people’s mental health. I commend the work of several charities, including the Bearded Fishermen Charity, the Fishermen’s Mission, FishWell and the Angling Trust, to support fishermen and women with their mental health. What measures are the Government taking to make fishing safer and to help improve the physical and mental health of our fishermen and women?
In conclusion, fishing is vital for our local communities, our economy and our food security, which is national security. This Government had the room to make real progress on the good—albeit not perfect—legacy they were given. Unfortunately, they are adrift from the shore when it comes to truly grappling with the challenges facing the industry, or they have actively worsened the situation with their decisions, such as this awful EU deal. The Government must wake up and steer their ship in a new direction, or they will see the industry sink on their watch.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a pleasure to respond to an extremely good debate, with many Members reflecting the issues that they have discovered in their own constituencies and bringing them to the Floor of the House, as we expect them to do. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for his tireless commitment to championing the fishing industry and for persuading the Backbench Business Committee to grant this debate in the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) has worked closely with the right hon. Gentleman in his work on the fishing industry, and she is delighted to be here, ensuring that an important local industry to her constituency is properly represented and reflected on the Floor of the House.
Fishing is an incredibly important industry to the vitality of many coastal communities. It is culturally and socially important. It is a way of life passed down from generation to generation, and it is evident in a town’s built environment, whether it is the jetties and marinas, the seafronts where the boats moor or the fish huts that dot many a local promenade, not least where I was born and grew up, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) was so generous to point out in his contribution.
The key to achieving the collaboration we need to ensure the future of our fishing industry is working with those who know the industry best to deliver opportunities for the future. We also have to remember that fishers contend with tough working conditions. Many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides have raised that point. It is a difficult and dangerous life, but it is often undertaken with passion and commitment. I pay tribute to all those who have been injured or tragically lost their lives at sea. Fishers provide us with the world-class fish and seafood that the UK is rightly revered for. I pay tribute to the RNLI, which often goes out in dangerous conditions to rescue people and save lives at sea. I commend the ongoing efforts of the fishing industry to improve safety—those efforts must continue as a priority.
The fishing industry is operating in a challenging environment, as we have heard from Members from all parts of the House, but many highly promising areas in the industry present opportunities, and we wish to enable the industry to grasp them. It is the case, though, that sectors within the fleet are struggling. There is increasing competition for marine space. Our marine spatial prioritisation programme helps to mitigate that, and I thank industry leaders for the data they have shared and contributed to, which has hugely improved the programme’s insights into this key challenge.
Pressure on stocks means that we must carefully manage fisheries, including in some cases through significant reductions in total allowable catch and changes to other measures. The sector contends with barriers to exports, and Labour’s work to develop new markets and ease the administrative burden of trading in a highly perishable foodstuff is complex and will take time, but that work has begun. Meanwhile, as we have heard, in particular from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other Members, it can be hard to recruit staff, and entry into the industry requires significant investment.
In that context, the ability to change and adapt is important, and fishing has a good record in doing that. Fishing businesses have to mitigate the impacts on stocks that are under pressure, adapt to changing distributions of fish because of climate change, respond to changing consumer demands, adopt new technologies and develop new skills. It is a task that this Government will continue to support the industry in navigating. We are supporting and encouraging the industry to organise and collaborate, to plan confidently and to invest for the long term. I will continue to work with industry experts—big and small—who know the sector best in order to build a thriving and sustainable fishing industry.
Jim Shannon
Would the Minister agree to have a meeting with representatives from Northern Ireland? I feel and they feel that that would be advantageous for us all to find a better way forward for the sector.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am a very generous person, and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman’s representative bodies. He knows that fishing is devolved, but I understand that some issues are dealt with nationally, albeit not by my Department. Such issues are dealt with by my previous Department, the Home Office, but not by my current Department—I am obviously talking about the issue of visas, which been raised by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not want to give away internal Government issues, but I have a meeting in the diary with the relevant Home Office Minister, where I will discuss some of these issues. Although I cannot promise what the outcome will be, I can promise that the industry will be properly represented. I know that this matter is also relevant to aquaculture and processing, so I am more than happy to take into account any information that hon. and right hon. Members wish to give me ahead of that meeting. Having met some members of the industry around the country, I understand the pressures.
I have met many representatives of the fishing industry since assuming my role in September, and I had a hugely informative visit to Newlyn in December. I have been invited to Bridlington, to Shetland and to Newhaven, so I have an entire tour of the country coming up. I may not be present in the House for a long time, because I will be yomping around the coast to have a look at what is going on in both big and small sectors of the industry. The industry is very complex, and it is impossible to make generalised comments about it. What is important for an inshore small boat will be very different from what is important for a deep sea trawler that spends many months out at sea; I understand the differences.
On that note—having plotted my escape from this place for a few nice visits; I know the importance of seeing and understanding for myself the diversity of the industry, which sits at the heart of our national identity as an island nation—let me say that I am grateful for the invaluable contributions of my fellow coastal MPs on both sides of the House, who have brought the views of their coastal and fishing communities to the Floor of the House. I am listening. I know that I will not be able to please everybody, but I will do my best to understand the issues that are being faced.
The development of the fishing and coastal growth fund has been welcomed in some places and condemned in others. We have been working with the industry to understand the priorities of fishing and coastal communities, and to ensure that they help shape the fund so that it can drive growth for the future. Several themes are emerging from the initial engagement, including the importance of developing the industry’s workforce for the future—something that has featured in discussions on the Floor of the House—making port-side improvements and ensuring that funding goes to all parts of the industry, including small-scale fishers as well as larger parts of the industry. The issues of education, entry to theusb industry and ongoing training have also come up.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) did not miss her chance to suggest that Cornwall should have a ringfenced allocation from the fishing and coastal growth fund—a request that I heard when I visited Newlyn. I am very interested in using the fund to ensure that money is made available to those who know their areas best, so that it can be put to best use. That does not always happen with Government funding. I do not want the money to go to people who are very good at making bids for funds; if possible, I want it to go to the places where it will do the most good, so I am in the market for listening to suggestions on how that can be properly brought about. After all, we have 12 years to try to make a difference, and I hope that the fund can do that.
Andrew George
I am very grateful to the Minister for coming to Newlyn, which is in my constituency, and for listening to the industry. The Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation proposes a dedicated fund of £10 million, and wants to ensure that it works with the Government to agree on a strategy to develop the industry over the next decade, including through the recruitment of new, younger fishermen.
Dame Angela Eagle
I had discussions with the Cornish Fish Producers’ Association and the Young Fishermen’s Network on the quay down in Newlyn. I missed the hon. Gentleman at 5 am! Perhaps we can meet another time when I am down there. The bid has been well thought through in principle, and I am impressed with it. However, we have to wait until the fund is properly launched. At this stage, I cannot say anything other than how impressed I was with the bid. Decisions will be announced after our consultation with the industry is over. I am sure that the devolved Governments will be doing similar things with their parts of the fund.
In the negotiations on the fishing opportunities for 2026, we have been able to agree about 640,000 tonnes of UK fishing opportunities, worth roughly £1.06 billion, based on historical landing prices, including 610 tonnes, worth roughly £960 million, secured through negotiations with the EU, Norway and other coastal states. We have secured these deals against a very difficult backdrop of challenging advice for a variety of stocks, including northern shelf cod, against a legacy of 14 years of mismanagement, broken promises and neglected coastal communities.
Our approach to the negotiations is based on rebuilding trust with fishing communities, securing decent jobs, and restoring fish stocks so that our seas can support jobs and coastal communities for generations to come. We have worked closely with those in the sector to discuss the science—an approach the Conservative party refused to take, preferring to negotiate headlines rather than outcomes—as well as to understand their perspectives and requirements, and help them prepare for the impact of quota decisions.
We have achieved a number of resulting wins in this year’s negotiations, including more opportunities for our sea bass fishery, a commercially viable total allowable catch for Irish sea herring, valuable plaice and sole quota transfers, and flexes in the channel and the Celtic sea. The total allowable catches agreed with the EU and Norway have enabled the continuation of the mixed demersal fishery in the North sea, avoiding the cliff edges and uncertainty that characterised negotiations year after year. We have agreed a new management model for North sea herring, which will help to ensure the long-term sustainability of the stock. We have increased opportunities for our commercial pollack fishery, following two years of being unable to target the stock, and we have achieved a significant increase in the UK bluefin tuna quota from 63 tonnes to 231 tonnes. We need to continue to focus on working closely with the industry to improve the scientific understanding of fish stocks and consider further improvements to management measures that protect fish stocks, and support good jobs and strong coastal communities for the long term.
At the end of his speech, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked me about Norwegian access. We believe that the UK-Norway bilateral arrangements are fair and balanced, but I appreciate that some individual UK stakeholders may favour changes to the current arrangements. We take that into account in the negotiations each year and keep it under review. It is important to look at these deals in the round, because what is given away may also be swapped in the quota swaps, and therefore there are trade-offs. However, if he and those in the industry in his constituency feel that something is going wrong or that too much has been given away, he must let me know so we can ensure that the quota swaps are working as intended.
We are working at pace towards a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, and are aiming to have legislation in place by the end of 2027. The new agreement will slash red tape for UK seafood exporters and reopen the market for GB shellfish from certain domestic waters, which will make it easier to sell British fish to our largest trading partner and strengthen the economies of our coastal communities.
We are supporting offshore wind development as a key part of achieving the Government’s mission of making Britain a clean energy superpower. The transition to clean power must be fair and planned, and done with, not to, our coastal communities. As part of addressing that, the Government for the first time gave a strategic steer to the Crown Estate on key risks and issues associated with areas of potential future offshore wind development in the English sea. This steer, provided through the marine spatial prioritisation programme, is helping to guide the Crown Estate in identifying suitable areas for future offshore wind that avoid Government priorities such as the fishing industry and environmentally sensitive areas. I hope to continue to work closely with those in the fishing industry to ensure that their voice is heard when we discuss how these things are done.
I am conscious of time, so I will finish by saying that bringing about change is incumbent equally on the fishing industry and on the Government. We want to work together to bring about positive change. We know that fishing faces many challenges, but with close collaboration, openness to innovation and a Government willing to take responsibility rather than make excuses, there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of fishing—and I certainly am.
Mr Carmichael
I do not know if the Education Minister from Ontario that you welcomed is still here, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if not, that is unfortunate. Many of my family emigrated to that province in the early 19th century, so it is nice to see some of them coming back now.
I place on record our appreciation for the engagement from various fishing organisations, in the run-up to today and throughout the year. They include the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the Shetland Fishermen’s Association, and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations; Mike Cohen and Felix Davies from the latter have been in the Gallery throughout our debate. If that is not an illustration of their determination and commitment, then I do not know what is.
We have had, I reckon, 13 Back-Bencher contributions, as well as contributions from the three Front Benchers. We have covered the usual range of issues, including tax, quotas and spatial squeeze, but we managed to diversify into how to kill lobsters and the reintroduction of eels. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) took us back to the beginning of time. There was a happy contrast between his speech and many that we have sat through over the years that did not take us back to the dawn of time, but made us feel as though we had been taken back to that time.
The Minister gave an impressive list of the asks that she has been given. It will be daunting to address them all, but I encourage her to see that list as a positive, because it shows that there are people in this industry who want it to develop and grow. This is a great industry that can have a great future if we give people the basic tools to get on and make it great. I thank the Minister for allowing us to ventilate the issues today, and I am sure that we will return to the subject in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the fishing industry.