Fishing and Seafood Sector Strategy

Noah Law Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

As ever, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and always asks insightful questions. I can assure him there was quite a debate about whether to include food in the industrial strategy. Of course, there are wider consequences and costs to including it. I am no longer in a position to comment on the Government’s perspective, but I am sure the Minister has heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

To shape the strategy, the report proposes four pillars: sustainable management and access to space and quota; fleet modernisation, infrastructure and technology; workforce and labour; and supply chains and domestic consumption, underpinned by measures relating to governance, science, funding and the sector’s social licence. The strategy is set out across 38 separate recommendations. You will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to go through them, Sir Roger, but I will make some brief observations on the merits of that strategy through the lens of food.

As we are all repeating these days, food security is national security, and on an island that surely must be as true at sea as it is on land. After all, fishing is fundamentally about food production. I will take three aspects of this in turn: food security, health and climate. First, on food security, I do not represent a fishing constituency, but like all constituents, mine eat fish—although probably not as much as they should. What struck me throughout the process, and during my time as Minister and shadow Minister, was how disconnected the fish on our plates has become from the boats that catch it. According to the most recent figures, 461,000 tonnes of fish and shellfish were landed into UK ports in 2025. At the same time, we imported more than 1.1 million tonnes of seafood, while UK consumers purchased more than 411,000 tonnes of seafood in retail outlets.

It is true that we export much of what we catch and import much of what we eat. There is nothing inherently wrong with that; it is part of the reality of a rather remarkable food system. We heard in our inquiry that both are key to the UK’s diverse seafood economy, and in normal times that serves us well. From the pandemic to the war in Ukraine and instability in the middle east, we have recently learned just how fragile supply chains can be. We also know that supply chains will be strained further by climate change and biodiversity loss.

In those moments, a diverse domestic fleet and onshore processing capacity are strategic assets—a source of food that can be redirected to our own tables when supply chains are under pressure. However, in the UK, fishing and seafood all too often remain on the periphery of how we think about food security and resilience. Too often, they are absent from the discussion. We have no headline measure of how self-sufficient we are in seafood, and we continue to fail to connect the role of sustainable fisheries to our resilience planning. It is so frustrating to see an indigenous food-producing industry remain on the edges of those conversations.

That is why the action plan recommends that seafood should be fully represented in food security assessments, so that we understand how domestic fisheries can help the food system absorb shocks now and in the future. Alongside that, it recommends measurable targets for seafood supply, consumption and the sector’s contribution to food security. I am very grateful to Dr Sarah Coulthard from Newcastle University for her work on small-scale fisheries, the inshore fleet and their contribution to our food security.

Secondly, on health—for food is also about health—sustainable seafood has a lot to offer towards a healthier nation. The NHS recommends at least two portions of fish a week, one of them oily. However, the average person in the UK eats around half that. The gap is widest among children and lower-income households—the very people who stand to benefit most from seafood nutrition. A strategy for fishing and seafood should set out practical steps to address that, including a sustained two-a-week campaign run with the NHS, better food environments and public procurement—a lever that the Government control directly. After all, a healthier population is ultimately a lower burden on the health service.

Thirdly, on climate, well-managed, wild-caught seafood offers a relatively low-carbon form of animal protein. It needs no feed, no fertiliser and no land. Emissions from fuel use across the entire UK fishing fleet account for around 0.12% of the UK’s territorial emissions, and about 1.1% of those from agriculture. If fishing is to play its full part in climate action, however, we have to be honest about the current state of play.

Parts of the fleet are ageing; some boats are around 60 years old. Many want to modernise, but few can afford to. Vessel construction and operating costs have risen sharply, and smaller operators struggle to access affordable finance. There are no off-the-shelf net zero solutions for fishing vessels. That is why the action plan calls for a programme of demonstrator vessels and research into alternative fuels to build evidence and de-risk investment, and for a national assessment of harbour and shoreside infrastructure needs, including readiness for decarbonisation.

The industry is working hard to meet its sustainability obligations, but if we expect it to succeed, including on decarbonisation, we must help it to meet the costs of getting there. Investment via the fishing and coastal growth fund is welcome, and the strategy could help to guide where that money goes so that it can effectively support the industry and the wider sector.

As I have already suggested, none of this sits neatly in one Department. Food security sits with DEFRA; health with the Department of Health and Social Care; energy and net zero with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; procurement right across Government; crew visas with the Home Office; trade with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade; and fisheries management itself spans three devolved Governments, and so on.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the devolved Governments. Does he recognise the potential role that the single foundation strategic authority of Cornwall can play, together with our local Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation, in deploying that funding in a much more targeted and localised way?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The work of the CFPO is truly inspirational for much of the sector. My hon. Friend’s point about the possibilities of devolving decision making feeds into the wider discussion around devolution at the moment. I think we may need to revisit regional levels of intervention, because that might be the right level at which to do it.

To go back to the Government Departments—I wish the Minister luck with this—each decision made across those spaces may be sensible on its own terms, but when they fail to join up, the sector feels the consequences cumulatively, however unintentional they may be. That is precisely why the sector needs a strategy.

There is more to be said, but I suspect that many hon. Members will raise the issues facing their own constituencies. I hope that the Minister will take from my contribution a sense of the value of fishing and seafood to the nation, and of the need for a strategic view to secure the sector’s national benefit. I was very grateful that he attended the launch of the action plan a few weeks ago and engaged and responded with such grace. I know full well the constraints that he faces, but I will ask him for some assurances.

First, will the Government commit to publishing a long-term strategy for fishing in the wider seafood sector when resources and time allow? Secondly, will that strategy form part of the sustainable ocean plan that the Government have committed to developing next year? Thirdly, how will the Government work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the strategy is backed across all four nations and delivered on the ground? Fourthly, will the Minister provide a written response to the APPG’s 38 recommendations and meet the APPG to discuss them in depth?

In conclusion, I thank everyone involved in the production of the report, and am grateful for the good will shown by people across the industry and beyond. On a personal note, I thank the brilliant officials I had the good fortune of working with at DEFRA, particularly the highly knowledgeable Anne Freeman. I also thank my friend Terri Portmann from Plymouth, who has helped me throughout these five fascinating years. This industry inspires great passion and commitment, and rightly so. It deserves the strategy that it seeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for calling this debate and the Minister for his prioritisation of a visit to Newlyn in Cornwall so early in his tenure, where I am sure he gained a strong sense of our priorities. Fishing remains central to communities like mine in mid-Cornwall. As we have heard from colleagues on all sides of the Chamber, it is vital that we continue to put our fishermen and women at the heart of shaping and delivering the future of the sector.

More topically, I welcome the continued freeze on red diesel duties announced in the Budget, but we must recognise that EU vessels continue to benefit from access to the crisis mechanisms of the European maritime, fisheries and aquaculture fund and the middle east crisis temporary state aid framework. That is putting our fleets at a significant competitive disadvantage and all too often rendering it uneconomical to leave port. Will the Minister consider how the Government can address that competitive disadvantage?

Turning to the bigger picture, the fleets in our sector, sector 7, remain under significant pressure, including from foreign vessels, which account for approximately two thirds of landings. Although quota distribution has increased marginally in favour of UK vessels in recent years, not all fisheries are quota-bound and, broadly speaking, catch ratios in the sector continue to reflect historically established entitlements, with the highest concentration of effort per job in the sector remaining among the industrial-scale foreign vessels we have heard quite a bit about today.

[Torcuil Crichton]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that one of the only opportunities of Brexit was the opportunity to look at the UK quota again and redistribute it to communities and inshore fleets such as his?

[Noah Law]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the need for a democratisation of many of the quotas. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

As we all know, not all fishing effort has an equivalent ecological impact. Larger, industrialised and—in my sector, at least—foreign vessels are likely to have a disproportionate impact on stocks, while the smaller vessels of our domestic, largely inshore fleets tend to employ more selective, low-impact fishing methods. Ultimately, the smaller vessels that make up our fleet in Cornwall and across the wider sector act as the bedrock of both employment and environmental stewardship. Those twin priorities should be core Labour priorities. Fishermen tell us about the pressures, which really are mounting in the six to 12 nautical mile zone. Will the Minister consider the efficacy in our sector of potential measures in the six to 12 nautical mile zone, and whether a 221 kW engine-size restriction could meet the employment and environmental challenges? Similar measures have been employed effectively and selectively on a sectoral basis, as in the case of fly seining and beam trawling recently in area 7 and coastal waters, respectively, as well as longer-dated precedent in continental waters, with measures for the North sea plaice box.

Finally, in the light of forthcoming responses to our fisheries management plan consultations, I would welcome the introduction not just of some of the proposed technical measures on engine size, but of an integrated approach to biodiversity targets, a climate-sensitive approach to stock rebuilding—that has been alluded to but not spelled out explicitly—that recognises the reality of mixed fisheries, and recognition of the spatial challenges that we have heard about and the need for integrated marine spatial planning, as so masterfully highlighted in the action plan of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Finally and briefly from the Back Benches, I call Mr Myer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. The Government must look beyond fishermen and at the wider sector, including the food processing sector. That is a key ask as part of this debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that in his wind-up speech.

The challenge on fuel means that countries on the continent—France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Ireland—have spent tens of millions supporting their fishermen, so much so that in some of our waters the only boats that can afford to fish are the European ones. That is frankly absurd and prompts the question: what are the Government doing about it? Does the Minister think it fair that British fishermen are competing in their own British waters with a European fleet propped up by their Governments? Will the Minister bring forward a tailored plan to provide fuel support to fishermen, as the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has requested?

One aim of Brexit was to put British fishermen first in British waters. The previous Conservative Government took the UK out of the common fisheries policy and negotiated 750,000 tonnes of fishing opportunities for 2024. What was that for? That opportunity was squandered by the Labour Government when they handed EU vessels full access to our waters until 2038—12 years of fishing rights signed away at a cost that the NFFO estimates reaches £6 billion easily.

What did our fishermen get in return? Absolutely nothing. Under the deal the Conservative Government negotiated, access would have been agreed year-by-year, giving us the same leverage that Norway uses to secure a fair deal. That leverage has now gone, thanks to the complete disregard of the Labour Government for the livelihoods of fishermen up and down the country. For this Government, fishermen are just another pawn they can sacrifice for a closer relationship with the EU, whatever the cost.

[Noah Law]

If that is so, why did the hon. Gentleman’s Government not negotiate one-year rolling access rather than a longer period?

[Robbie Moore]

The one-year rolling access was in the pipeline to continue, as it was with the negotiations with Europe. It was this Labour Government that signed away our fishing rights for 12 years.

I must turn to the hon. Member for Cambridge, for whom I have a great deal of respect. When the deal was signed in May last year, he was the Minister responsible for fisheries at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He did not oppose it; he defended it. In a written answer he said:

“That deal secures a continuation of the current access arrangements.”

That is 12 more years of the status quo for a fleet that was promised so much more. That was the deal that he stood behind. I welcome his support today for the fishing strategy, but fishermen in every harbour town will be entitled to ask why he did not fight for them when he was in a position to act.

We have a new Prime Minister who talks a great deal about supporting our food sector and our fishermen. We are about to enter an EU summit on 20 November and the widely circulated joint draft statement says that the Prime Minister welcomes

“decisions on full reciprocal access to waters to fish, until 30 June 2038…and the extension of energy co-operation on a continuing basis.”

There we have it. Our fishermen have been sold down the line yet again by this Labour Government. I will give the Minister the opportunity to intervene if he is able to say why this is such a good deal for our fishermen. He does not wish to intervene. Will he confirm that nothing in the SPS agreement will affect UK fisheries management? Will he instruct negotiators not to concede technical measures or any other backdoor measures to the EU in the forthcoming negotiations?

There is also the challenge of spatial squeeze at sea, which was picked up by many Members. Fishermen are being squeezed out of their own waters. Offshore wind takes their grounds, with compulsory marine protected areas taking yet more in a double displacement. The NFFO warns that the third round of marine conservation zones could, in effect, ban fishing in an area the size of Wales, limiting the scope of fishing in this country and once again damaging the livelihoods of our fishermen. On that point, will the Government review the compensatory marine protected areas for offshore wind? What are the Government doing to make the case for fishing to the Crown Estate?

That brings me to the fishing and coastal growth fund. The industry welcomed the fund, but let me be clear about its scale: £360 million over 12 years is around £30 million a year. However, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations estimates that the EU access deal will cost the sector £6 billion. What side of the sector are this Government on? Energy upgrades funded through the fund will take months to deliver, and any fuel savings will be eclipsed by today’s diesel prices. When the EFRA Committee asked the Government to frontload the fund, Ministers said no. Without help, investment and skills are already leaving right now. There may therefore not be much of the sector left for the fund to support. With landings down 10% by weight in a single year, does the Minister seriously believe that £360 million spread over 12 years is enough? I put the question again: will he look to frontload the fund to support our sector now?

To conclude, the fishing industry’s asks are clear and reasonable: tailored fuel support and an SPS deal that protects our hard-won controls in our waters, rather than negotiating them away, as this Government have with the 12 years they signed away and are due to put in concrete, so to speak, at the EU summit on 20 November. Negotiations that concede nothing through the back door are an absolute request of the fishing sector, as are an end to double displacement and the first ever UK fishing strategy. Our fishermen feel forgotten. They deserve a Government who are truly on their side. Over the past two years, this Labour Government have shown a blatant disregard for fishermen’s way of life and for the importance of their work to UK food security. This debate is a chance for the Minister to show that he gets it and that he cares. I look forward to his response to the specific questions that have been asked.