Fishing and Seafood Sector Strategy

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Sir Roger.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for securing the debate. As a former Fisheries Minister and independent chair of the APPG, he knows that a fishing and seafood strategy is much needed given the critical state of the UK’s fish stock. If fish stocks deplete further, the implications for small, sustainable UK fisheries, and for our supply chains, will be significant. These are concerns that the APPG for the ocean, which I chair, has heard for years.

I want to highlight two themes. First—this might seem like an obvious point, but it is often missing from the discussion—we cannot have a thriving fishing industry without abundant fish stocks. There have been many debates in this place that frame the UK’s food security as a purely terrestrial issue, but in an uncertain global context marked by supply chain disruption, rising food prices and geopolitical instability, strengthening our domestic food security will be essential to the UK’s long-term resilience. As an island nation, that needs to include fisheries.

We face fish shortages that are a huge threat to the security of our fishing industry. A recent Blue Marine Foundation report found that 62% of the 55 fish stocks assessed declined between 2016 and 2025, with 38% falling below the minimum level required by law. Some declines have been extraordinary: Celtic sea cod declined by 98%, while Irish sea plaice declined by 88%.

The Government have repeatedly missed deadlines to achieve good environmental status in our seas. Only two of 15 key indicators of healthy seas have been met in UK waters, and over half of assessed fish stocks are not meeting their current recovery targets. Oceana UK found that 25% of UK commercial fishing populations are being over-exploited. Fewer fish will ultimately mean fewer opportunities for our fishers, less resilient coastal economies and a less secure domestic food supply.

I welcome the Government’s announcement yesterday that remote electronic monitoring will be legally required on all large pelagic fishing vessels, as the APPG for the ocean called for. That will give us a better idea of what fishing activity is happening, but it will not prevent fishing from exceeding the advice provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Its scientific recommendations should be treated as a ceiling, not a target, with additional safeguards for depleted stocks.

Fish stock recovery must be at the heart of our approach to food security and fisheries policy. If we want the fishing sector to endure for future generations, we must ensure that there are fish left to catch and follow the science to make that happen. The Government are currently negotiating with the EU, Norway and other coastal states to determine jointly managed fish stocks for 2027. Yet in 2026, 58% of assessed UK catch limits were set above scientific advice. The UK must enter negotiations with a clear commitment to science-based limits. Alongside 44 other parliamentarians, I have written to the Minister to express that position, and I look forward to receiving his response.

Secondly, a fisheries and seafood sector strategy is just one piece of the puzzle in the more joined-up approach that we need to see for ocean governance. The restoration of fish stocks cannot be achieved through fisheries policy alone; it requires a systematic approach to how we manage our seas. The most recent report of the APPG for the ocean called for a cross-departmental ocean strategy to address the fragmentation of ocean governance. Currently, the responsibility for our seas sits among multiple Ministers and Departments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge highlighted. We have heard the Government say that the UK is back in the oceans business. I sincerely welcome that, but it needs to be backed up by a clear ocean strategy that incorporates expertise from coastal communities, academia, the environmental sector and, of course, the fishing and seafood sectors.

I will conclude with an observation. It sometimes feels as though fisheries and ocean conservation are pitted against each other, as if we might choose between protecting our marine environment and supporting the UK’s sustainable fisheries industry. That is not true, and we must move beyond that false dichotomy.

Earlier this year, the APPG for the ocean heard from Clive Mills, a local Sussex fisherman, and his daughter, who came to Westminster to warn that there may be less than 10 years left in the profession because there are simply not enough fish. His warnings are for all the families who have fished in those waters for generations, and who may no longer be able to pass on their livelihoods to the next generation.

I urge the Minister to go and see the truly inspirational work being done. Fish populations can recover if the Government support the conditions that give them the opportunity. In the North sea, haddock, whiting and plaice stocks are now more than twice the minimum level required to support sustainable fisheries, demonstrating that when well-managed stocks have the chance, they will rebound.

There are clear steps that the Government can take now to support a fair transition towards sustainable and low-impact fishing, including the transparent allocation of fishing opportunities that rewards vessels that deliver environmental, social and local economic benefits, and the tackling of destructive practices such as bottom trawling. It has been over a year since the closure of the consultation on banning bottom trawling in marine protected areas, so I am keen to hear from the Minister when we will get the Government’s response.

Our oceans and all who depend on them are running out of time. We cannot afford to be delaying the important decisions if we want healthy seas and to leave a sustainable fishing industry for the next generation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Thank you for the unexpected pleasure and opportunity, Sir Roger. I will say just a few words on the subject, because there are a number of matters that concern me.

I want to pick up on a few of the points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). She spoke about the quality of scientific advice, and ICES is the absolute benchmark in these matters. However, she may wish to consider the fact that, last year, the mackerel stock recommendation was for a total closure—in fact, from memory, I think we agreed a 40% cut. This year, on the basis of new advice, it is apparent that the mackerel stock is back at a safe biological level, so there are these occasions when it becomes apparent that the fisheries advice from ICES has to be put into its proper context.

On the many occasions when I am told that it is necessary to have a total allowable catch of zero, it is often in answer to the question: what will it take to restore the stock to a safe level within 12 months? The only answer to that question can be a zero TAC, but that then begs another question that nobody ever asks: if we have a zero TAC, will it restore the stock to that safe level? The answer is no, because it will take several years before stocks of white fish, such as cod—we all know the pressures on North sea cod at the moment—can recover.

The hon. Member for Rotherham also referenced the healthy level of haddock stock at the moment. For those who are responsible for fisheries management, that highlights the difficulty and complexity of this issue. To put it in its crudest form, haddock swim with cod. If we set a zero or very low TAC for cod, as has been suggested for the northern shelf this year—notwithstanding the fact that we think that there are at least three subspecies of cod in the North sea—there is a danger that it will serve only to present cod as a choke species. That then prevents the white fish industry from targeting the haddock that, as we know, is in a healthy state.

I say to the House, and to all those who follow our proceedings, that in this industry there is an infinitely complex scenario, and it really is necessary for everybody to approach this issue with a measure of humility. We must understand that for those communities where fishing matters—the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) referred to them in his speech—it matters a great deal. I am concerned when I see the plethora of environmental non-governmental organisations that now enter this debate with a very simplistic analysis. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would deny commercial fishing opportunities to those communities that rely on them most. That is why the hon. Member’s work and that of the APPG, of which I have been a member for 25 years, to bring people together to achieve an in-depth understanding of what is involved for the different stocks and the different communities, is absolutely critical.

It feels like there is always some species under pressure in some part of our waters, and I fear that that will always be the case. A few years ago, the different pelagic species were under serious pressure. We understand that pelagic species, such as mackerel and herring, will migrate through British waters into Faroese waters and up into Icelandic waters. That is why the idea that somehow or another one country can take responsibility for fisheries management is simply for the birds—biology defies that sort of simplistic approach.

At the end of the day, the people who have the biggest stake in ensuring that there are healthy fish stocks are the people who work in the industry and who will want some day to pass the businesses that they have built up over several generations on to the next generation. These are the people and these are the communities who suffer most when we get it wrong here.

[Sarah Champion]

I am listening intently to everything that the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I completely agree that it is UK communities that are suffering the most at the expense of the internationals. Does he agree that we need to listen to those people and include them at the heart of any fishing decisions we make? At the moment, they do not have a seat at the table on every occasion.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have preached that sermon in this House for the last 25 years. We should also remember that the ICES advice we spoke about earlier is two years out of date—the data is two years from the acquisition to the implementation. Hearing from fishermen and understanding the expertise they employ when they take their nets out to sea must be at the heart of this debate. Respect for people who have, for generations, made a living from this industry—from the seas—must be the starting point. Stick to that and everything else will surely fall into place.

I am very grateful to you, Sir Roger, for allowing me the opportunity to speak.