7th Report – Resetting the relationship with fishing communities
Select Committee
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
HC 680
24 April 2026
No response data available yet.
Recommendations
7 results
2
The government should provide this Committee with the analysis supporting the £360 million funding level,...
Recommendation
The government should provide this Committee with the analysis supporting the £360 million funding level, the 12-year duration and whatever the profile of this spending is expected to be over that period, including the reasons for establishing a new scheme …
Read more
6
In response to this report, the government should set out the year-by-year allocation of the...
Recommendation
In response to this report, the government should set out the year-by-year allocation of the budget in England for the next four years and clarify how funding will be provided to the devolved administrations through the block grant, including whether …
Read more
9
Industry engagement should continue at a consistent level in the development of the Fund from...
Recommendation
Industry engagement should continue at a consistent level in the development of the Fund from year two onwards and be expanded to include additional fisheries groups and representatives from Cornwall. In response to this report, the government should set out …
Read more
16
Defra should establish a UK-wide network of Regional Fisheries Management Forums, comprising of fishers, marine...
Recommendation
Defra should establish a UK-wide network of Regional Fisheries Management Forums, comprising of fishers, marine scientists and environmental organisations. These forums should meet at least three times a year, with minutes published within 20 working days, and be given a …
Read more
18
In response to this report, Defra should provide the Committee with a clear written account...
Recommendation
In response to this report, Defra should provide the Committee with a clear written account of its engagement with the fishing industry following the release of the December 2025 UK–EU fisheries written record. This should set out the dates and …
Read more
22
In response to this report, the government should confirm its commitment to development of a...
Recommendation
In response to this report, the government should confirm its commitment to development of a ‘Sea Use Framework’. It should set out a clear timetable for developing such a Framework, which should follow a similar structure and methodology to the …
Read more
27
To ensure coherent cross-government leadership of the proposed Sea Use Framework by the end of...
Recommendation
To ensure coherent cross-government leadership of the proposed Sea Use Framework by the end of 2026, the government should establish a ministerial board, to oversee the coordination of government policy on the use of UK waters. This ministerial board would …
Read more
Conclusions (20) Observations and findings — click to expand
1
Conclusion
While we welcome the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund, the government has not clearly set out its rationale for committing £360 million over 12 years. The timeframe aligns with revised reciprocal access arrangements between the UK and EU, but it is unclear why this duration is the most suitable for …
3
Conclusion
The government clearly recognises the strong relationship between fishing activity and coastal community wellbeing. Evidence shows that challenges such as inadequate port infrastructure and limited skills and training pathways require targeted support to sustain active fishing communities. The Fund’s priorities for its first year reflect this need. However, from the …
4
Conclusion
Priority should be given to projects driven by active fishing communities during the Fund’s 12 years of operation. This principle should be embedded in any expanded delivery model or in any new scheme developed, with 26 clear and measurable criteria to ensure support continues to strengthen the fishing sector and …
5
Conclusion
No Parliament can bind its successor and therefore front-loading the 12-year investment would better support ambitious, multi-year projects and deliver early benefits. Current plans for the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund provide £165 million up to 2030–31, yet England’s first-year allocation is just £22.6 million, less than one-twelfth of the …
7
Conclusion
We welcome the scale of engagement carried out in developing the Fund and note clear evidence that stakeholder views have informed its early design, such as the introduction of competitive rounds in the first year of the fund. However, there were significant gaps in representation that must be addressed in …
8
Conclusion
From year two onward, delivery of the Fund will not be limited to the Fisheries and Seafood Scheme and will incorporate a broader range of priorities such as community projects which are potentially beyond the remit of what the current schemes, and the Marine Management Organisation, deliver. (Conclusion, Paragraph 17)
10
Conclusion
The allocation of the Fisheries and Coastal Growth Fund through the Barnett formula is inconsistent with model preferred by industry stakeholders in all parts of the United Kingdom. We are concerned that it does not reflect the relative scale, distribution or needs of the fishing industry across the UK. In …
11
Conclusion
It is not credible for any devolved administration to demand devolution of a scheme and then to complain about the financial consequences of them being given what they asked for. It is difficult not to see this as a demand that was driven by the politics of the constitution rather …
12
Conclusion
Going forward, the UK Government should work collaboratively with the devolved administrations on the design and allocation of the Fund to ensure consistency and fairness across the sector for the allocations in year two. Seafish should be used to support a coherent UK-wide approach. (Recommendation, Paragraph 24) Communication and trust
13
Conclusion
Trust between government and the fishing industry has been damaged by successive administrations. Rebuilding that trust is essential if the sector is to deliver its full economic potential for the individuals and communities it supports. Fishers are calling for a stronger voice in the decisions that affect them. Although the …
14
Conclusion
Defra should require all officials working on fisheries policy, funding schemes and regulatory design to undertake regular, in-person engagement at ports and with those operating active fishing vessels. This programme should mirror the department’s existing initiative 28 to place civil servants on farms, ensuring that officials have a clear, practical …
15
Conclusion
We welcome Defra’s trials of regional seafood planning in England, but more benefits will arise if the scope and participation of the trials are broadened to better capture the full range of perspectives from fishing communities and the wider seafood sector. This will enable policy to be shaped more effectively …
17
Conclusion
Communication and engagement with the fishing industry on the outcomes of the annual UK–EU consultations for 2026 regarding changes to technical measures were inadequate, with unclear messaging on implementation timelines and confusion even among delivery bodies. This has left industry without reliable information on changes that directly affect their operations. …
19
Conclusion
Those who are regulated need clear visibility of how that regulation is being enforced, so it is concerning that the MMO no longer routinely publishes its enforcement data in its annual reports, despite continuing to collect it. While we welcome the MMO sharing a snapshot of this data with us …
20
Conclusion
In the interests of transparency, the MMO must include inspection rates and enforcement outcomes in its annual reports beginning with the 2025–26 report. In response to this Report, it should also retrospectively publish inspection data and outcomes for the previous three years to enable meaningful comparison, assessment of trends, and …
21
Conclusion
There is growing spatial conflict between fisheries, offshore energy, conservation and other marine users, yet current governance arrangements still lack a coherent “shore-to-sea” approach. Defra’s Marine Spatial Prioritisation programme (MSPri) remains opaque and underused, The Crown Estate’s Marine Delivery Routemap has a limited remit focused on the seabed, and the …
23
Conclusion
Spatial squeeze poses significant and growing challenges, with an increasing number of sectors competing for limited marine space. Although initiatives such as the MSPri programme are intended to inform cross- departmental policy and planning, the absence of any reference to fishing or environmental protection in the North Sea Future Plan, …
24
Conclusion
Defra should introduce an annual reporting process which details the use of the Marine Spatial Prioritisation programme (MSPri). The first report, covering activity during 2025–26, should be published within six months of the publication of this Report. Thereafter, annual MSPri reports should be published by 1 July each year, with …
25
Conclusion
Defra should work with DESNZ to publish, within six months of the government response to this Report, an addendum to the North Sea Future Plan that explicitly sets out how fishing interests and marine environmental protections are assessed and incorporated into decisions affecting the sustainability of the North Sea. (Recommendation, …
26
Conclusion
Fragmented responsibilities and siloed decision-making continue to undermine coherent marine management. Confusion over the North Sea Future Plan and conflicting policy signals experienced by fishers demonstrate that existing coordination structures are not delivering consistent cross-government direction. Although mechanisms such as 31 the MSPri Board exist, they do not provide the …