PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Fishing Industry - 28 November 2024 (Commons/Westminster Hall)

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the fishing industry.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I am grateful to members of the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate, and I am delighted to see such good geographic and political representation in this Chamber.

Before we come to the meat of the politics, as we enter Advent it is worth reflecting for a second or two that, in coastal and island communities right around our country, there will always be families with a sense of sadness because somebody will not be with them for Christmas. Last year, four people in the fishing industry lost their lives. That number goes up and down—in 2021, it was as high as 10. It is worth our remembering as we talk here in the safety, security and warmth of Westminster Hall that the way in which our fishers actually live and work is very different. They often take an enormous personal risk to put food on our table, and we should not forget that.

I will touch on four different areas. First, there are the year-end negotiations coming up between the UK, the EU and Norway. Looking ahead, we have the review of the trade and co-operation agreement and the transitional arrangements in 2026. There is also the ability of our fishing industry to access traditional fishing grounds and the extent to which it is being squeezed out of them. Finally, there is the availability of crew for many boats, especially those operating inside UK territorial waters, to whom the opportunity of visas through the transit visa regime is not available.

I commend the right hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. I have spoken to him, and I apologise that I cannot be here for the rest of it—I think it will be the first fishing debate that I will ever miss in totality.

In the debate we had on 5 November, the Minister discussed the issue of positive outcomes that could be attained if these issues could be resolved. The ability to go to sea to catch fish is reliant on having the crews to man vessels. Despite automation projects being brought forward, the problem is in the ability to access crews and thereby survive long enough to bring the benefits of these opportunities into local communities. This is not just a Northern Irish problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that some relatively minor tweaks to Home Office policy would enable the growth potential identified for Northern Ireland and all this great United Kingdom to be replicated in one form or another?

As interventions go, I think that meets its total allowable catch. I will come on to that issue—the hon. Gentleman knows that, because we have debated it often enough. If he cannot be here for the entirety of the debate, his fishing constituents will know well enough that he is a regular and diligent contributor to these debates. He will be missed at the end of the debate, if he is not here.

Mr Efford, you and I are long enough in the tooth to remember the December fishing debate ahead of the December Fisheries Council, which was a staple of the parliamentary calendar when we were in the European Union. Of course, things have changed since then—the debate is no longer in Government time, but we always have the co-operation of the Backbench Business Committee in holding it, and the focus now tends to be on the UK-EU-Norway debates.

Essentially, we are still looking at year by year by year negotiations. I am afraid that, even outwith the EU, this remains an absolutely crazy way to run an industry. I cannot believe that any Minister in Government would ever go to Tesco or Sainsbury’s and say, “We’re going to tell you how much business you can do next year, but only for next year. By the way, we won’t tell you until the end of December—sometimes well into January or February—how much business you are going to be able to do.” Surely at some point we have to move away from this crazy annual round and get into a proper, stable set of multi-annual negotiations. But we are where we are for the moment, and that is what we have to deal with.

When the Minister responds, will he outline what he sees as the priorities for the negotiations this year? I also invite him to reflect on the role of the science that underpins the negotiations. The blue-chip science comes from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES. It is always complex, often quite nuanced, and often vulnerable to misrepresentation. It is a mix of empirical data, extrapolation through mathematical modelling, conjecture and the application of precautionary principles when the evidence is just not adequate. That is then balanced with socioeconomic factors and a bit of politics thrown in for good measure. The TCA negotiations will coincide with the arrangements on energy co-operation, for example. I am afraid we are back in the situation we were in during the EU days, when there was often conflation between different negotiations; and where there was linkage, it was inevitably the fishing industry that lost out.

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent case. On his point about multi-annual quotas, does he not agree that ICES very carefully presents its advice in a manner that actually provides for Governments, Ministers and indeed the European Commission to adopt a policy of multi-annual quotas for stock recovery? It does not necessarily solely push the industry or the legislators into a position where they have to set the annual cliff edges that he describes.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Many of the scientists who have contributed to the ICES data over the years will say exactly the same thing. They want to see the stability of the multi-annual approach that would allow the economic efforts and the conservation efforts to be managed together. That makes perfect sense.

At present, there is a real problem—albeit not a new one—in relation to data-deficient stocks. It has very real consequences that feed through to the whole process, due to the policy of proposing automatic precautionary quota cuts of at least 25% for stocks for which full scientific advice is unavailable. In the current round, for example, ling and lemon sole are not massively significant species, but they are an important and valuable part of the catch for the fishermen in the whitefish fleet in my constituency, and they face recurring quota cuts based on the fact that they are data deficient. If we do that year after year, we will have a quota that does not match the reality of the fish in the sea.

As a consequence, smaller species in a mixed fishery become a choke species, so it is a two-strand problem. First, there is not a proper quota for fish that could be caught and could be an economic benefit to the industry. Secondly, they can sometimes act as a choke species. Because there is a low quota for them, once they are caught other fish in a mixed fishery will not be able to be caught and landed either.

The opportunities that come with getting this right have been highlighted by the northern shelf monkish—a stock that was, following an ICES review, recently granted full analytical assessment and is no longer classed as data deficient. It will be a valuable species for the catching sector, no longer to be subject to precautionary quota cuts. However, the most significant point of all is that, based on scientific advice and full analytical assessment, for the first time, the recommendation now is for a quota increase of some 211%. That is where the operation of the various principles of ICES can be counterproductive, and it leads us to a situation in which we do not have the best outcome because there is a mismatch between what is in the quota and what is in the sea.

The fault, I am afraid, often lies in our own hands because it all comes back to how we fund and operate fisheries science within this country. In Scotland over recent years, our fisheries science laboratories have been salami-sliced away to the point of virtual extinction. There has been a chronic lack of investment in fisheries science. Something that was previously blue chip and widely respected across Europe has, I am afraid, been diminished to such a point that, in recent evidence to the Scottish Parliament, Dr Robin Cook, a fisheries scientist from the University of Strathclyde, said:

“It is of real concern that we no longer have a marine institute in Scotland with the capacity to deliver for the future. The directorate is dependent only on what it learned 10 years ago.”

If we do not put data in and do not gather the data for ourselves, I am afraid that we cannot really complain that what we get out at the other end is not fit for purpose.

I now turn to the trade and co-operation agreement review. At the point of leaving the European Union, expectations among the fisheries industries were very high, especially in the catching sector. It was the most obvious industry to expect a win from our departure from the European Union, and it was certainly promised one. It really takes something to do worse than the common fisheries policy, but somehow or other we found ourselves with a deal that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation described at the time as

“the worst of both worlds”.

Provisions for review are built into the trade and co-operation agreement. We are in the transitional arrangements at the moment; the review will take effect over the course of next year and into 2026. From the discussions that I have had, I know that the EU sees that as a priority, and I would like to hear from the Minister that the Government see it in those terms as well.

The core issues at play are obvious: we are looking at quota numbers, specific stock allocations and, of course, access. It will take political will from this Government to win back the ground lost by Boris Johnson, but fishing communities expect positive change to be delivered. The fishing industry has a great story to tell; it is rooted in the island and coastal communities that define our country. The new Government have the chance to be part of that story and to close the sorry chapter of missed opportunities.

My right hon. Friend talks about stories; I think that is one of our challenges in attracting new people into the industry, which is one of the reasons why we are facing the visa issues. The Scottish Fisheries Museum in Anstruther in my constituency is doing a lot of promotion work, but it needs support, including educational support. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

I absolutely do, and this is one of the reasons why it is so difficult for fishing boats in coastal communities to recruit a crew. For decades, teachers, careers advisers and probably even parents have been telling people, “Don’t bother going into fishing. It’s a dying industry; it’s got no future for you.” When you look at the history of the last couple of decades, you can kind of understand why people say that. I believe that they are wrong, but it is going to take a long time to turn that around.

In the meantime, in order for there to be an industry there for the next generation to be recruited into, I am afraid that we need to take measures now to maintain it. In the short to medium term, that requires a more sensible approach to be taken by UK Visas and Immigration in the Home Office. It also requires the industry itself to step up to the plate and to say, “We understand that the answer to this, in the medium to longer term, lies within our own hands. Here is what we propose to do to make it a more attractive industry for the future.”

I apologise for being unable to stay for the whole debate, including the ministerial response at the end of it; unfortunately, travel plans intervene.

On the point that the right hon. Gentleman just made, during the summer representatives of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, the Scottish Seafood Association, Seafood Scotland and the North East Scotland Fisheries Development Partnership all endorsed the need for a better set of visa arrangements, so that we can deal with these post-Brexit labour shortages. Might it be helpful if the Minister agreed to visit the north-east to meet representatives of those bodies to discuss how we can address the labour shortages in a more productive way?

I will take this opportunity to address the visa question; I was going to address it last, but we might as well address it now. The hon. Gentleman is right: especially for inshore fisheries, which are those working within the 12-mile limit of the UK territorial waters, the labour shortages are an absolute chokehold. The bigger boats that fish outside the 12-mile limit can take advantage of transit visas. Frankly, that is an abuse of the transit visa system, but it is the only mechanism available to boats to get the crew they need.

In news reports and on television programmes recently, there have been some quite disgraceful examples of the way in which the transit visa system has been abused. There are those in the industry who need to take a good, long, hard look at themselves. They have brought shame on the industry by the way they have mistreated those they have brought in on transit visas—although, to my mind, that also reinforces the need for a proper system of visas to be introduced for what the Migration Advisory Committee accepts is an occupation with a shortage of available labour.

The crux of the problem is that although the MAC designates fishing as a shortage occupation, the Home Office insists on a standard of English language competence that sits somewhere between O-level and A-level—in fact, it is just short of A-level—in the English system. Obviously, some language skills are necessary, but that standard of language skills goes beyond what is necessary. We have had for years now crews from the Philippines and from some African countries in particular who work in our inshore fleets and other fleets with no real safety concerns about their work, so I see no reason why the Home Office should continue to insist on that language standard, which acts as a barrier to the industry getting the crew it needs. If we accept that bespoke arrangements are required for the fishing industry, to insist on a language requirement that goes across all the workforce arrangements makes absolutely no sense to me.

If the solution is to do away with English language standards, does the right hon. Gentleman think that would detract from the point the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made about trying to attract a domestic workforce and investing in skills for that workforce?

No, I do not think it does because, apart from anything else, I am not talking about removing a language requirement completely. It is the level of the requirement that is the issue—this requirement of something just short of A-level for English language. I also think it betrays a particular attitude to what a skilled worker is, which is informed, it seems to me, by people who think we should measure somebody’s skill only by their academic achievements, when in fact the people coming here to work on fishing boats have a much wider range of other skills for which there are no metrics in the current visa arrangements. Having accepted that there is a need for more visas to bring crew in, to get us to the point where we can do more to develop our own crew, it is unfortunate that, for this reason, we are basically undoing all the good work we have done.

To go back to the trade and co-operation agreement, having taken a fairly substantial detour, the question of access to UK waters post-2026 will be critical. For both quota and non-quota stocks, shares are heavily weighted in the EU’s favour, and the EU is more dependent on UK waters to catch its quotas than vice versa. EU vessels’ catch in the UK zone is worth between £450 million and £500 million a year, compared with around £80 billion-worth caught by UK vessels every year in the EU zone.

To put it another way, the UK shares of fishing quotas written into the TCA fall well short of the zonal attachment that was supposed to underpin the negotiations at the time of departure. They do not reflect the reality of where the fish actually are, and amount to an annual transfer of at least £400 million-worth of natural resources from the UK to the EU. The final cost to the fishing industry is far greater as multiplier effects from the fish catches are thought to be significant; they are typically assessed at between 2.5 and 3.5. Will the Minister tell us who will lead the review? What are the UK priorities for it? What engagement will he have with the fishing industry to ensure that he is able to deliver for them what Boris Johnson and the noble Lord Frost at the time of the departure so manifestly failed to?

I am mindful of the fact that I have taken quite a lot of time, but I am taking a lot of interventions. On the question of spatial squeeze, there are currently 48 offshore wind projects planned in Scottish waters alone. Seven of them are fully commissioned; two are under construction. In getting even to this point, the view of the fishing industry is that its voice has simply not been heard or, if it has been, it has been ignored. Many of those offshore wind developments are constructed in highly productive fishing grounds, and there are more on the way. Great British Energy and the Crown Estate announced another fishing licensing round just last year. That cannot be seen in isolation.

The fishing industry understands the need for change. Fishers are not blind to the realities of climate change; they see its effects day and daily in their own nets. The loss of cod in some parts of the North sea seems to be down to the changing temperature of the sea, which is having a real effect. The industry is also, ironically, part of the answer. The fish caught by our fishing industry are a good source of protein caught in a sustainable way in a low-carbon-emitting industry. In the rush to tackle climate change, there seems to be a determination to squeeze out some of the people who are most able to help us to move to that future.

I discovered an interesting fact following a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). She has been talking with her local fishers, who say that the population of brown crab in Scarborough and Whitby has gone up as they are making their homes in and around the wind farms there. So there is some subtlety and nuance in all of this.

Absolutely, yes. The picture is complex and it depends what is being put where. However, for some of the spawning grounds for whitefish that have been affected, the evidence suggests that the construction is causing a problem. If we damage our spawning grounds, we are storing up a problem for ourselves a few years down the line.

Floating offshore wind is a particular issue for the bigger boats that are further offshore. When floating offshore wind farms are being constructed, virtually the whole area of their construction is closed down. It is impossible for those boats to trawl safely due to the cables that are there because of the floating offshore wind turbines.

I have one other matter that I want to place on record, and on which I seek the Minister’s continued assistance. His predecessors in office did take this seriously. It is not something that lies within the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but it matters very much to our fishing community: it is the safety of fishermen at sea, which is a Department for Transport responsibility.

I have had two truly shocking incidents in my constituency in recent years. The Pesorsa Dos, a Spanish gill-netter, tried to foul the propeller of a local trawler, the Alison Kay, some time ago, and the Antonio Maria, a French longliner, did the same thing to another local boat, the Defiant. Both incidents happened inside the 200-mile limit—the exclusive economic zone—but outside the 12-mile limit of territorial waters. The United Nations convention on the law of the sea tells us that safety action has to be taken by the flag state. The flag state of the Pesorsa Dos is Germany, and I am afraid Germany does not see much interest to be had from prosecuting a German-registered but Spanish-owned trawler fishing to the west of Shetland.

The position remains dire. Sooner or later, if such behaviour is allowed to continue, somebody will end up with a boat at the bottom of the sea. This has to be taken seriously. Representations need to be made to the relevant authorities in Germany and France. Some effort has been made by Ministers at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for Transport, but more needs to be done. We simply cannot leave our fishing industry unprotected in this way.

The position with the Pesorsa Dos is interesting because it was fishing not just in UK waters but around Ireland’s. The Irish authorities took an approach rather different from the hands-off attitude of Marine Scotland and the Marine and Coastguard Agency, and took the Pesorsa Dos into port, where she was held for some considerable time. Of course, if she is in port, she is not out earning money for her owners. They threw the book at the Pesorsa Dos and its skipper.

The Irish enforcement agents, when they were climbing on board, found that the ladder provided for them broke. That meant an immediate €10,000 fine for failing to provide safe access. The matter recently finished in the Irish courts with a series of fines and the forfeiture of gear worth £470,000. I suspect that will concentrate the minds of the owners and skippers of that boat better than the hand-wringing and legalism we have in this country. A bit more of that sort of enforcement would be enormously welcome.

We all know that Al Capone was eventually done for tax evasion. Let us hope that the modern gangsters of the sea might be brought to book in a similar way, if not necessarily for the misdeeds themselves.

Order. I have had a number of requests from people who want to leave before the Front-Bench responses. I cannot allow that to happen—certainly not in the large numbers that have made requests. If you intend not to be here, I cannot call you to speak. If you make interventions, you might find the Chair sympathetic if you take a little longer than normal. I understand that this is a very important constituency issue. I remind anyone who wants to speak that they should be on their feet so that I can see who wants to be called.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this important debate.

As the MP for South East Cornwall, I am proud to represent a constituency with a rich fishing heritage. Our iconic small-scale fishing fleets and charter vessels from Looe and Polperro, and from Fowey in the neighbouring constituency, are the lifeblood of our communities. That proud tradition, passed down through generations, ties our communities to the sea.

I pay tribute to those who support our brave fishers and their families, including the harbourmaster and port authorities, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, for which I had the privilege of working, the Seafarers’ Charity and the Fishermen’s Mission. If hon. Members have not bought their Christmas cards yet, I suggest supporting those fantastic charities, which do so much when things go wrong. I also pay tribute to Seafood Cornwall Training and especially to Clive Palfrey of Looe, who works tirelessly to raise safety standards and still makes time to helm the Looe lifeboat.

This Labour Government are rightly committed to tackling climate change and biodiversity loss. Damaging practices have taken a significant toll on the marine environment, and urgent action is needed to secure the sustainability of our fishing industry and restore the health of the sea. Offshore wind is essential to achieving home-grown clean energy, but developments must be carefully sited to minimise disruption to ecosystems, sensitive habitats and our historic fishing grounds.

Marine spatial prioritisation provides a framework to balance those competing needs, but our fishers must be included in the decisions. I urge the Minister to ensure that consultations are held in local ports and are scheduled around tides so that fishers can attend without sacrificing a day’s income and do not miss the chance to be heard. That should be the norm rather than the exception. It is a simple ask, but it would mean so much to our fishers and, vitally, it would improve Government engagement.

Sustainable fisheries management is essential, and catch limits should be set using the latest scientific advice, but the UK currently lacks robust data on many commercial species. Does the Minister agree that it is essential to prioritise a road map to improve stock assessment and work with partners on shared stocks to secure sustainable management? Better monitoring and enforcement are vital to ensure compliance, but the issues with CatchApp and inshore vessel monitoring must be urgently addressed. Will the Minister seek assurances from the Marine Management Organisation that it will address them, ensure transparency and timelines on fixes, and adopt a pragmatic approach until the systems are fully operational?

Globally, management and enforcement around marine resources are often poor. Stronger labelling laws could block illegal, unreported and unregulated fish from entering UK markets and could protect our domestic fleets. I would be grateful if the Minister committed to a review of labelling laws, to protect not just the world’s oceans but our markets.

Locally, buying UK products helps to boost our fleets’ income. I pay tribute to fishmongers such as Pengelly’s of Looe, which does a great job of supporting its local fleet and offers an overnight service for those without a local shop. I also highlight the work of local Looe fishers Murray Collins, Dan Margetts and David Bond, who have a tuna tagging programme, and Dr Bryce Stewart and Dr Simon Thomas, who do pollack data gathering. I would welcome the Minister’s support in expanding fisheries science partnerships to fill knowledge gaps and secure robust data for all our commercial stocks.

I support a transition away from damaging practices that harm our future stocks, alongside advances in vessel safety and technology. Remote electronic monitoring is a cost-effective way to improve transparency, sustainability and data integrity while creating jobs. Better data means better management, which benefits everyone.

Fishing is central to the jobs, culture and identity of South East Cornwall, a region grappling with low income. Our fishers are ready to play their part in regenerating our seas, but they need a fair deal that respects their knowledge, safeguards their livelihood and protects the marine environment. I am proud that the Government are working with our fishers. I urge the Minister to continue working closely with fishers, scientists and all involved to secure a just and sustainable future for our seas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. As the Member for Gordon and Buchan, I represent a constituency that plays a key role in Scotland’s fishing industry. The strategic transport corridors of the A90, the A947 and the A96, which run through my constituency, are crucial arteries on which our fishing industry relies for its distribution network. Those vital links connect our coastal fishing communities to processors and markets across the UK and Europe. I will touch on three crucial issues: the vital role that fishing plays in our food security, the increasing spatial squeeze in our waters, and the TCA.

Fish and fishing are part of our national food security. It should go without saying, but it is so important that the industry is not overlooked. The 2021 UK food security report stated that fish constitutes a valuable protein source, accounting for nearly 20% of the total animal protein consumed globally. With the consumption of fish going up in recent decades, both globally and in the UK, the figure will only increase.

Our fishing grounds—we are seeing something similar with our farmland—are becoming ever more crowded, with increased pressure for space and with competing and often incompatible uses of the marine environment leading to spatial squeeze. About 37% of the seas around Scotland are now in one of the 240 offshore or inshore marine protected areas. The industry also has to be mindful of the “Will they, won’t they?” potential for highly protected marine areas. Coupled with the expansion of offshore renewable energy, such as wind, tidal and wave, that means that the space for fishing in our offshores is shrinking faster than ever.

Fishing is currently excluded from about a third of Scottish waters. Back in the year 2000, the figure was only 1%, so we can see the scale and pace of change. Yes, we need renewable energy and we need to protect the marine environment—important sites such as Forvie in my constituency show that—but we also need proper consultation on how the fishing industry may be increasingly impacted. Generations of expertise relating to fishing, spawning grounds and species movement must be considered when other decisions are taken. The incoming competing pressures in our seas must not be prioritised over fishing or to the detriment of the fishing industry. The current balance does not feel equitable, despite the value of fishing in producing healthy, sustainable and low-carbon food, contributing to our food security and supporting thousands of coastal jobs around the country.

As has been said, the upcoming discussions on the trade and co-operation agreement post 2026 are crucial and of real concern to the industry. There is a clear imbalance off our shores, with EU vessels catching in our waters six times the value of fish that we catch in theirs. That imbalance affects not only boats at sea, but the entire supply chain, including businesses and workers in my Gordon and Buchan constituency who form part of the north-east’s fishing industry network. That imbalance needs addressing in the TCA review, and the review offers an opportunity to do so, but the Government must prioritise our fishing sector and not grant EU vessels inequitable access to UK waters as part of a wider deal with the EU. The rhetoric of resetting relationships must not come at the expense of our fishing sector or our coastal communities. It is so vital that the Government prioritise the TCA. There was silence on it in Labour’s manifesto, and that cannot be replicated here.

It is clear that ex-fishing towns such as Fleetwood, which I represent, have been devastated by the decline of our once prosperous fishing industry. My community and lots of others were built on fishing and thrived on it, but Fleetwood has suffered terribly from job losses and a decrease in living standards. Everyone in this room knows that our fishing industry is in decline. Does the hon. Member agree that if these negotiations are handled properly, we could see increased investment in our towns that could reverse the devastation to our local economy? That would be so important to many communities like mine.

I agree with the hon. Member, and I certainly hope that that is the case. It is important that these negotiations go well, and it is important that our fishing communities are helped and represented. As I was going to say, money that is spent in the fishing environment has an economic impact onshore that is 2.5 to 3.5 times greater. It is important for everyone across the country, including our fishing communities, that this is handled correctly.

I hope the Minister will address the concerns about how we manage the growing spatial squeeze that is felt by our fleet. There must be a proper assessment of the impact on supply chains and distribution networks. The strategy for the 2026 negotiations will be really important, given that they are starting so soon.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) paid tribute to those working at sea, and I want to pay tribute to the RNLI crews. It is a charity close to my heart. Its brave crews risk their lives to save lives at sea; they do us all a service, and they do us proud.

Fishing is such an important part of Cornwall’s history and its future—as you can probably tell, Mr Efford, because half the MPs from Cornwall are here today. We are surrounded by the sea on three sides. Fishing has been integral to us for centuries: Cornish people have fished for pilchards for hundreds of years in Newlyn, St Ives, Mevagissey and Portscatho, among other places in my constituency. Oysters in the Fal have been farmed for half a millennium with traditional methods that are still in use today because of a byelaw dating back to 1876 that outlaws mechanised dredging—an early example of legislation that promotes sustainable fishing. That makes the oyster farms on the Fal one of a kind in Europe, if not the world.

Fishing in Cornwall is not just about the past; it is also about the future. Our fishing industry is vital for our food security, jobs and tourism. We need to preserve the knowledge and skills that have been passed down through fishing families in Cornwall for generations. The industry contributes more than £170 million to Cornwall’s economy directly from fish landed, and we have 500 fishermen at sea and 8,000 jobs in the supply chain. There are 15 jobs ashore for every one at sea. It does have a future and it does have profit. We need to make sure that the conditions are right and we protect it.

How do we do that? I repeat the points that have been made about the ongoing EU-UK negotiation process to set the fishing quotas for next year. In previous years, reductions to some quotas have been too large for fishers to adjust to: for example, the pollack quota last year was set at zero with no warning, and Cornish fishermen ended up being compensated. The past two years of annual negotiations have led to a £20 million reduction in fishing opportunities for the Cornish fishing fleet, so we need a long-term approach to quotas that is based on scientific evidence and that balances food production with protecting the environment, promoting sustainability and supporting the industry. As a result of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement, under Boris Johnson’s Government fishing was basically sold down the river; Boris Johnson’s name is sometimes not spoken kindly in Cornwall. In the renegotiation, we need to be careful to ensure that our Cornish fishers do not lose out like that again.

I have mentioned Fal oysters, which are a vital heritage industry in my constituency. To protect the population, there is an ongoing review looking at the size of the oysters that are caught. I would like the Minister to pay close attention to it; I think it was passed up to DEFRA in April or May. Central to that is clean water. Sewage dumping is destroying the shellfish industry. In May 2003, 11 shellfish sites in Cornwall were forced to close because of high levels of E. coli. I welcome both the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will crack down on water companies that dump sewage, and the coming review. Agriculture will have a part to play as well.

Shellfish was an afterthought in the Brexit negotiations. There was extra red tape and there were reduced markets: as the UK is now a third country, we cannot export unprocessed oysters, scallops and mussels to the EU. That is a massive loss of market.

In conclusion, we need to look carefully at how we balance fishing, marine protected areas, sustainability, nature recovery, the environment and floating offshore wind. As an MP in Cornwall, I am a great supporter of floating offshore wind and would love to get it off the ground in the Celtic sea. We still have not quite got there; I want it kick-started, but it is important that everything has its space and that consultation is wide and is carried out with all of the industries.

Equally, we need a strategy for the ocean. We do not have one at the moment: we have a local plan for the land, but nothing similar for the ocean. It is important that there is a long-term strategy that looks at protecting certain areas and our ambition for zero-carbon electricity by 2030, but that still maintains profitable and vital heritage industries such as fishing, so we can carve out a place for everything as we go forward.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate.

Fish and chips were deemed so critical to morale during the dark days of the second world war that they were not rationed, and extra resources were allocated to keep the home fryers burning. Today, the harvest of fish and seafood from our pristine waters is hard-won. It is estimated that fishing crews face the threat of death at 100 times the rate of the average UK worker. In my constituency of Dumfries and Galloway, the Isle of Whithorn will never forget the loss of seven of our sons when the scallop dredger Solway Harvester foundered off the Isle of Man in a force-9 gale 25 years ago in January. The two youngest victims were aged just 17. The sea is magnificent and unforgiving.

Today’s fishermen face the terrors of the deep and onshore threats too. Fishing in south-west Scotland centres on scallops, lobster and crab. The economic contribution of catchers and producers is vital to vulnerable coastal communities, yet fishermen are criticised as voracious plunderers when really they are cautious custodians of the sea. It took sterling work by my colleague, Finlay Carson MSP, to stave off the threat of the loss of livelihood for static-gear fishermen along the Solway coast. The clunking fist of the Scottish Government was set to ban them inside a six-mile limit to save berried or egg-bearing lobster, but it was the fishermen who spoke up about returning berried lobster to protect not just their livelihoods, but those of the next and future generations of fishermen.

Brexit could yet deliver a sea of opportunities for our fishermen. If we spend time at the quaysides and pierheads of Kirkcudbright, Garlieston, Port William, Stranraer and Portpatrick, we will not hear any clamour to return to the hated common fisheries policy of distant and faceless Brussels. In 2022, landings in those places were estimated at £4.5 million—an enormous shot in the arm for a rural area such as Dumfries and Galloway.

As we have heard, while the sea is vast, it is not limitless. Floating offshore wind is just one of the sectors exerting spatial squeeze, for we cannot fish between the turbines and their seabed infrastructure is another impediment. Shipping lanes and undersea cables, as important to Britain today as the convoys during the battle of the Atlantic, further hem in our fishing fleet. Plans have also been suggested for more marine protected areas in English waters to offset the environmental damage in existing MPAs. Fishing already pays the price of being excluded from prime fishing areas through the privatisation of the seabed, but being locked out of the MPAs adds insult to injury.

The waters are choppy, but fishing is a touchstone in Scotland: St Andrew, our patron saint, was a fisherman. Fishing is also about food security, so it is terrifying to hear this pivotal industry being touted in some quarters as a mere bargaining chip as the Government prepare for TCA renegotiation.

The hon. Member mentions the forthcoming TCA, which others Members have referred to. We have not yet heard who the chief negotiator of that review will be, but does he agree that it would be advantageous, once they have been identified, for them to come to Scotland to listen to the industry, to fishermen and fisherwomen, and to the fish processing sector to hear their concerns in advance of the negotiations?

I agree that it is important that the voices of people directly involved in the industry, both onshore and offshore, are heard. On the TCA negotiations, nothing—not quota or anything else—should be exchanged for automatic access for EU boats. War could not choke off our fish suppers; can we ensure that legislation does not either?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and I extend my thanks to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for corralling us all here for this important debate. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, he is a substantial expert in this field, and we have debated it many times—I am delighted to be back in the House and able to participate in these discussions. I agree with much of what he said in his opening speech, which reflects his years of experience on this topic.

On the anticipated finalisation of the transitional arrangements review in 2026, could the Minister bear in mind that the catching sector is willing and able to work and support the Government with all the facts and arguments that they will need when they enter into those negotiations? I am sure that the Minister will have heard the requests in the speeches today, which I add to by asking whether there could be an indication of the Government’s aims, ambitions and approach in those negotiations. What are they planning to do, particularly to achieve longer-term settlements rather than year-on-year negotiations? Nobody can run a business effectively in those circumstances and we would not ask or expect it of any other sector. If the Government intend to show respect to the fishing industry, addressing that would go some way to doing that. We have a golden opportunity to demonstrate our support for the sector.

I am going to talk an awful lot about processing, and I remind Members that this is not just about the catching sector. I am the Member of Parliament for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, and it will be of no surprise to anybody that the processing side of the industry means so much to our local economy, to those who continue to work in the industry and to the small and large businesses that operate in processing.

My constituency plays an essential role in serving the nation’s seafood. Almost every major UK food retailer buys its seafood from Grimsby, and the town continues to be a thriving hub for seafood processing, such as the bespoke smoking from our 150-year-old smokehouses. The Minister enjoyed a visit to my constituency to see them in action. We embrace the traditional techniques of smoking high-quality product and deliver that around the country, including to very high-end retailers. From Grimsby to Harvey Nichols might seem like a long stretch, but it is actually just a short hop through our seafood processing sector.

Good-quality food production buildings are very hard to find. Whether it is cold stores or processing factories, Grimsby is home to some of the best sites anywhere in the UK. We have around 500 food-related companies processing 70% of the nation’s seafood, most of which currently comes from Norway, Iceland and the Faroes, and is frozen and shipped through our local ports—not quite the romantic notion of what the fishing industry should or possibly could be, with direct catching and processing locally. The world has changed, and it is worth remembering that that is the reality of the sector and of the industry, so that it continues to support communities.

Grimsby is widely regarded as the seafood town. On the way in on the train, we see remnants of a sign that called us “Europe’s food town”, although perhaps we do not want to mention Europe quite so much in Grimsby any more. The industry is now worth more than £2.5 billion every year, so it is nothing to be shy about. I know that success has not always been the case, however, and I have seen at first hand that my constituents are not afraid to dig deep when times are tough.

Following the decline of the trawling industry, which we have seen in so many coastal communities across the nation, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes stood tall and proud and adapted. That adaption to focus on the supply chain and processing of seafood means that currently, across Grimsby and the wider Humber region, there are 6,000 people directly employed in more than 50 approved seafood processing units.

It is not just processing that our area holds expertise in. As of this year, I am proud to say that the next generation of seafood professionals will hone their skills at a dedicated new training facility in Grimsby. The UK seafood school at Grimsby Institute will provide the next generation with the skills and knowledge that they need to thrive in the industry, with up to 75 students being trained to use those facilities in the school’s first year. I was pleased to go to the opening, where I saw the skills of the first tranche of new students. This is so important—the price of fish used to be a throwaway comment, but fish is now an expensive product, so retailers and processors are prepared to take risks in the training to prevent high fish wastage. This route encourages young people to be creative and to see seafood as high end and specialised.

That is incredibly welcome, but it does not stop there. The Minister will be pleased to know that the University of Lincoln is opening a centre of excellence, which will focus on the skills required by the processing sector in the local area to support people into highly skilled, well paid and long-term processing jobs. I was surprised to learn that a skilled, experienced filleter can expect to earn in the region of £70,000, because they are so in demand and waste so little fish. As tough a job as it is, it is well remunerated.

The Government have an essential role to play in enhancing and advancing this industry through their negotiations. The Minister will know that I have previously raised the issue of the distant water fleet. It would be welcome if the Government started to engage thoughtfully in the latest rounds of negotiations with our international allies.

Many businesses in Grimsby have benefited from multimillion-pound infrastructure and skills grants from the £100 million UK seafood fund. I have written to the Minister previously to ask about the status of its future replacement. That support be greatly appreciated by coastal communities with fishing sectors, because it has been used to create investment, extend jobs, create new jobs and upskill local communities so that they are able to access those opportunities in my area. Given the success of the initiative, it would be helpful to understand whether there is a plan to reopen the scheme or launch one, so that businesses in our local seafood cluster can continue to benefit from that support.

The fishing industry is important not just to this Government’s commitment to economic growth but to their commitment to building the healthiest generation ever. Fish is the cornerstone of a healthy diet, as it is rich in essential nutrients, such as omega-3 fatty acids, high-quality protein, vitamins and minerals. Those nutrients are vital to the healthy functioning of the heart and brain, and they reduce the risk of chronic diseases. By incorporating more fish into our diet, we can significantly improve our overall health and wellbeing. I had salmon at lunch time, as I hope everybody did—I was going to ask for a show of hands, but I will not embarrass people. Encouraging the consumption of fish not only helps individuals to lead healthier lives but reduces the burden on our healthcare system by preventing diet-related illnesses.

We have a food strategy, and we have a food tsar in Henry Dimbleby. We have great structures such as the NHS. We have great programmes of providing lunches in schools. Could we incorporate those aims into a state function, such as ensuring that fish is regularly on the menu for people in the NHS, care homes or education, so that they can benefit from all its goodness? That will help to support our sector as well as anything else.

On the topic of delicious food, if anybody is in the vicinity of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes, they would be more than welcome to join me in some of our world-renowned chippies. Whether that is Ernie Becketts, the Ocean Fish Bar, Wybers Chippy or Steels Cornerhouse Restaurant, they can be certain that they will have the best fish and chips.

There are other elements that throw risk into the future of some of those stores. We are currently undergoing consultation on the pedestrianisation of Cleethorpes marketplace. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) is giggling from a sedentary position, but it is very serious. Steels has been in existence in the Cleethorpes constituency for more than 100 years—it is incredibly well known and traditional. Those who run it are so concerned about some of these environmental changes—the anticipated pedestrianisation and roadworks —that they worry it will be forced to close its doors in the next 10 months, which is very problematic and does not encourage people to eat more fish, as they should be doing. I said it would be a slight detour, but I got back to the point.

I will conclude. The future of the fishing industry in the UK holds significant promise in both supply and production. By continuing to support and invest in this essential industry, we can ensure its sustainability and growth, which will not only bolster our economy but enhance our food security. The Government’s role in facilitating trade agreements and providing direct investment is crucial.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), who gave what I suppose is best described as a commercial break in our proceedings, as she did a fantastic job of marketing the health and other benefits of consuming fish. This is déjà vu for me, in that I remember my first fisheries debate in 1997, for heaven’s sake. That was the annual fisheries debate we used to undertake in the main Chamber. One of the annual features of that debate was a contribution from the then hon. Member for Great Grimsby, the late Austin Mitchell, who I recollect was temporarily renamed by deed poll Mr Haddock, so enthusiastic was he to promote the fishing industry. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes is proposing to have a name change herself; she is certainly moving in that direction, given the nature of what she told us.

It is funny that the hon. Gentleman should mention that. I made it very clear in my maiden speech in 2015 that I would not be changing my name to Haddock or any other fish species. Interestingly, although Austin changed his name by deed poll to Austin Haddock, famously carrying a Harry Haddock inflatable to Parliament, we do not believe he ever actually changed it back.

Well, he died a fish, and we are very saddened by his demise. I should reflect, as we certainly did in those days, on the risk that people take to put fish on our table, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly reminded us. I remember that in 1997, we lost seven men in the industry in my constituency alone. It was just after the loss of the Margaretha Maria 200 miles off the coast of west Cornwall, in which we lost four men from Newlyn. We have sadly lost others in the industry since then. It is worth reminding ourselves just what a hazardous trade it is.

It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I thank him for coming down to my constituency in the summer to visit Newlyn and for the genuine interest he takes in the industry, both in the catching sector and in the processing and marketing sector, which certainly impressed everyone there who met him. I am very grateful to him for making that visit.

I come back to a debate on this subject after a decade’s sabbatical in the real world, which I must say is a very pleasurable place, and reflecting on a number of changes within the fishing industry in that time. Obviously, there is the B word; we do not want to return to the skirmishes of Brexit this afternoon, but it has certainly been a momentous change. During the period I was away, the fishing industry and fishermen were used as the poster boys for the Brexit campaign. I have to say that they were sold a very cruel hoax in terms of the outcome of the vote; they were made a lot of promises that have not been fulfilled at all.

I had been prepared to concede that there was a major opportunity for the fishing industry, and that it was the one sector within the UK economy that could potentially have benefited as a result of Brexit, but such a benefit has not been delivered. Those people who made promises at that time just walked away from the industry after they had come down to places such as Newlyn to have their photographs taken for the purposes of their referendum campaign. That caused a lot of bitterness within the industry. Nevertheless, we move on.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the common fisheries policy was often described as the worst possible policy apart from all the others, because fishing is a very difficult industry to manage, as the Minister knows and, indeed, as we all know. I remember engaging in fishing debates 10 years ago and there was a genuine belief then that we could move the industry away from the annual cliff-edge of the quota negotiations to a multi-annual system that would enable the industry, especially the catching sector, to plan five years ahead. Yes, there would be adjustments during that five-year, multi-annual rolling programme, but nevertheless it would provide a greater degree of certainty.

As I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend, the science supports a multi-annual programme. If we want a recovery programme for most of the stock, there is no reason why we cannot project forward five years—not with great certainty, admittedly, regarding the situation five years hence, but with an indicative quota going forward over that period. That would help the industry to plan for the future.

Another outcome for the industry in my area has been the detriment to the very significant export trade that existed. A number of companies operating back then —particularly those at the smaller end, admittedly—have gone out of business as a result of the impediments that predictably, indeed inevitably, were placed in their way, particularly for those involved in the export of live fish to the continent. That was predictable but avoidable, and it has clearly had a detrimental impact on the local economy. Nevertheless, our local community adjusts itself to the challenges it faces.

The hon. Members for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) and for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) have made some excellent cases on behalf of Cornwall’s fishing industry and the important role it plays in the local economy. Indeed, the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation produced a report, which I know was handed to the Minister, called “The True Value of Seafood to Cornwall”. It shows that the industry contributes £174 million to Cornwall’s gross value added per annum, with 500 full-time equivalent jobs in the catching sector alone. That equates to about 8,000 jobs in the seafood supply chain, so it is a significant player in the Cornish economy. It is often ignored, but nevertheless very important, particularly in my part of Cornwall with Newlyn being the largest port with a significant market.

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth also mentioned the need for a fishing and marine strategy, and I hope the Minister will take that on board. There are both opportunities and challenges associated with rolling out, as the Government must, with our support, the offshore wind programme in the Celtic sea, which we in Cornwall are keen to ensure achieves maximum benefit to the local economy and the community. There is no reason why it cannot be rolled out in a manner that enhances fishing opportunities rather than creating a detriment to the industry, but that requires the Minister, Energy Ministers and others to engage in dialogue with the industry to ensure that the location of those sites is planned with great care.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to one of the—probably—unintended consequences of the decisions taken, through a little story of an individual fisherman from my constituency. An inshore fishermen from Cadgwith, who fishes from Newlyn, has been affected by the cut in pollack quotas. As the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth said, compensation was offered to the industry, and many who received the funds used them, naturally, because they are fishermen, to go into other sectors where in fact there was pressure. For example, the industry is trying to protect the crawfish sector and implement a recovery programme. By then, there was no reason why the fishermen could not invest in the gear necessary to catch crawfish, and that had a detrimental impact on the recovery programme efforts.

I want to clarify something in relation to pollack. My understanding is that the scientific advice given out in June was that the total allowable catch should be set at zero, but it was not set at zero. The quota was set at 925 tonnes; even now, the stocks are much lower this year because the decision was not in line with the scientific assessment.

I will come to that in a second. The nature of what happens off the Cornish coast, and certainly in the south-west and other areas, is that pollack is caught in a multispecies environment. It is impossible not to catch pollack even when targeting other species—the hon. Member helps me to make the point—so my constituent went and targeted hake. The first thing to bear in mind is this. While he was targeting pollack, he was between 8 and 20 miles off the coast. To target hake, he had to go 40 miles or beyond, and that placed his small boat in significantly greater danger. In other words, it put him at greater risk to pursue an alternative fishery. That is point No. 1 to bear in mind.

The second point is that there is a pollack by-catch if someone is targeting hake. During one month—March of last year—my constituent caught more than 100 kg of by-caught pollack, which he was entitled to land in the market. Indeed, he was required to land it in the market; he could not throw it overboard. He was obliged to land this fish, as a result of which his licence was frozen by the Marine Management Organisation. Following some dispute, he was fined £1,000, and he then had to move out of that fishery. Of course, he was not targeting pollack at the time; he was trying to avoid it as best he could. The MMO did not offer him any kind of solution to the problem that he found himself with.

As a result of all that, my constituent has come out of that fishery and has since been targeting crawfish, of which the industry itself had undertaken voluntary measures to increase the minimum size and to help to recover the stock. Indeed, the minimum size proposed by the industry and implemented in Cornwall has since been picked up, adopted, in national legislation. The crawfish season is now over, so we now have a fisherman who has tied his boat up and is no longer able to fish.

The point is that I hope that the Minister, when looking at this issue, bears in mind that when we propose regulation affecting the industry, that is in effect a two-dimensional policy affecting three-dimensional reality. That is the problem. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the lessons learned just from that little anecdote when considering how policy is implemented, and on the unintended detrimental consequence. The measure does not actually help even the species that it is supposed to protect.

I hope that we are not coming back here in 10 years’ time, gnashing our teeth about the same issues and continuing this annual bunfight in which we do not even know what the quotas will be in just a few weeks’ time; I hope we have multi-annual quotas. One of the best ways of helping the industry is to provide it with all the capacity to manage itself better and for us politicians to try to stand back and keep out of it.

It is a pleasure to speak under you in the Chair, Mr Efford. My thanks and congratulations go to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate. I hope that in the coming years, the Government will find time to return the annual fisheries debate to the main Chamber. That was a good convention that the last Government cast aside, almost as quickly as they did their promises to fisherfolk following Brexit. I am sure that many of us would welcome its return.

This debate takes place in the season of the annual fisheries negotiations between the UK and the EU, as well as the trilateral negotiations with Norway. Last year, those negotiations resulted in more than half of catch limits being set above the scientifically advised levels, yet both international and UK law require that all stocks should be at sustainable levels. That is despite commitments under international treaties and agreements to end overfishing.

We currently have six commercially fished stocks—two cod stocks, two whiting stocks, one herring and a pollack—that are so depleted that the scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is for zero catches. We need to understand just how poorly managed those stocks have been. ICES provides zero catch advice for a stock when it is so depleted that, even without any catch, it will not recover above the biomass limit reference point for spawning stock biomass, below which a stock’s reproductive capacity is compromised and it is considered to have impaired recruitment capacity. In other words, the stock has collapsed.

It is important to note that the decline of those stocks was not unpredictable, and nor was it unavoidable. Consistently fishing at too high a level guarantees that stocks will decline; if fishing is high enough, the stock will collapse.

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

The hon. Gentleman is touching on an interesting issue. The ICES zero quota recommendations are what are called “headline advice”, which basically answers the question, “If you want this stock to recover in 12 months, what would you have to do?” Now, if we ask that question we will, of course, get the answer that the hon. Gentleman brings to the Chamber. In point of fact, in the early years of this century we had the cod recovery plan, which was the dominant feature of fisheries management in the North sea and went over, I think, 10 years—certainly five. He portrays the ICES advice as accurate, but there is a lot more nuance underneath that headline advice, and he would do well to look at that.

I am, of course, well aware that it is headline advice and that other things come into play, but as the right hon. Gentleman himself mentioned in his opening remarks, the things that come into play—I think he called them the nuances—are often political—

I think Hansard will record that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned that himself in his opening remarks.

Overfishing means that the stock is driven down even further. There is no cure to a collapsed stock that involves continuing to overfish. The Celtic sea cod stock has declined by 95% since 2012, but last year the total allowable catch was set at basically the level of the entire adult population—it was actually set just 2 tonnes lower—and now the entire spawning population is lower than that. If we roll over that TAC, the catch limit would exceed the entire spawning population.

The Irish sea whiting stock is currently about 9% of the level it is legally supposed to be. International commitments and the Fisheries Act 2020 commit the UK and the EU, which shares many of those populations, to maintain commercially harvested stocks at a level that can support maximum sustainable yield. The stock is at a mere 9% of that—not 9% of its natural size, but 9% of the already much lower level that is the legal minimum. That is another stock that has declined by more than 90% since the 1980s.

Climate change represents a significant threat to marine life and the fisheries that depend on a healthy ecosystem, but it was not climate change that collapsed those stocks; it was heavy and constant overfishing. We sometimes hear big fishing interests blame climate change for the collapse, and it certainly makes the recovery of those populations harder, but the truth is that we consistently set catch limits above scientifically advised levels. That has crashed those stocks and will continue to do so as long as Ministers are prepared to go into the negotiations and ignore the science.

In introducing the debate, the right hon. Gentleman spoke about climate change and cod stocks. In recent years, every time quotas for North sea cod have been set at sustainable levels in accordance with the science, the stocks of cod have increased. Every time quotas have been set out of line with the science, the stocks have declined. Our understanding of the additional pressures of climate change should be driving us to be even more precautionary in our approach to the protection of fish stocks—not to be pretending that it is the cause of their collapse. While I am thinking about cod and the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about the processing industry, I should say that the cod that comes to Grimsby is predominantly from Greenland, Norway and Iceland, which have a much more precautionary approach to setting the quota.

Many people here will remember the introduction of the discard ban or the landing obligation referred to by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). It is a ban on throwing away perfectly good fish that had been caught. What many people will not know is that this ban applies only to quota stocks of dab, flounder and gurnard. All other non-quota stocks can be thrown away at sea perfectly legally, and many are. About 35,000 tonnes of dab are discarded in the North sea every year—that is roughly 90% of the catch and equates to about 5 million fish. Remember that when we talk about the importance of food security. The irony is that dab actually used to have a quota, but the quota was removed when the landing obligation was brought in.

The purpose of the landing obligation was to create a real incentive for fishermen to use gear types and fishing methods that reduced unwanted bycatch and led to more selective fishing. It was designed to reduce the choke problem by incentivising more selective gear that would avoid choke species. Unfortunately, that works only if it is enforced and all the evidence shows that the landing obligation is now being widely ignored. More worryingly, not only is it being ignored, but potential discards are not even being accounted for in the TAC-setting process.

The only solution to discarding and improving scientific assessments is for the introduction of remote electronic monitoring—cameras, specifically. Without them it is impossible to know what is being caught and being discarded. Monitoring is essential for compliance. We currently have a system that literally incentivises bad behaviour. I was very taken by what the hon. Member for St Ives said about his fisherman and pollack. A fisherman who, like the one the hon. Gentleman mentioned, spends money on more selective gear, abides by the landing obligation and avoids certain areas because of higher bycatch of unwanted species, is massively disadvantaged compared with a fisherman who ignores those regulations. We are, as it stands, incentivising non-selective fishing, rewarding illegal behaviour and punishing those who stick to the rules, such as the hon. Gentleman’s constituent.

The fishing industry rightly talks about the challenges it faces, yet its biggest challenge comes from an unhealthy marine environment that is incapable of supporting thriving fisheries. The notion that we can have a thriving fishing industry without a thriving marine environment is an illusion. We cannot have a growing sustainable fishing industry on the back of a depleted marine environment. No measure of Government support or access to markets can make up for no fish. Somehow this self-evident truth goes out the window when it comes to making decisions. We should be clear: if we do not recover fish stocks and start setting catch limits at levels that allow stocks to grow and adopting a precautionary approach that favours long-term sustainability, then we will be back there every year wondering why quotas have to be cut.

There are instances where the advice is for large increases in quota, and they were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland; I think he said that when the data became available, it showed a 211% increase in relation to monkfish. When that is the case, I do not think we should chase down every last fish because that will simply result in smaller catches in future years, as well as significant increases in bycatch of other stocks, which will often result in overfishing. However, the argument the right hon. Gentleman made is absolutely right: we need to get good data and it needs to be comprehensive. Once we have that and we can base the scientific assessments on really strong data, we can make sure we fish in line with the science and that stocks can recover.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It comes back to the point I made about data and about the science that you base the data on. He will have heard in many of these debates over the years the concern that by the time the data is gathered and processed and goes through the ICES process, it is several years old, so it is reflective not of the fish stocks at the point at which the decisions are made, but of some years earlier. The one thing everyone can surely agree is that the better the data gathering, the better the science, and the better it is for fishers, conservationists and anybody with an interest in the seas.

I am delighted to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. It also adds grist to the mill of the five-year approach, but we perhaps need to be careful. It is perfectly reasonable to move to a five-year approach, but it would not necessarily immediately lead to us increasing quota. It might, in the first year certainly, actually lead to a more precautionary approach because one was looking at things over the five-year period. That might not be something that his constituents would appreciate so much.

We have heard today about spatial squeeze and how the fishing industry no longer has unfettered access to the entire ocean. That is true, but as has been pointed out it is unavoidable; indeed, for reasons of wider sustainability and our energy supply, it is important, but it is also an argument for acting in a way that grows our fish stocks.

On that point about the renewable side of things, there is an opportunity to bring the industry into consultation with the likes of the Crown Estate at a much earlier stage so that the voices of all of those co-located spatial sharers can be heard and planned around. There are examples of good relationships between offshore wind developers and fishing communities.

I am delighted that I sat down to receive my hon. Friend’s intervention because she is entirely right. What she said goes to the remarks made by our hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) who, because of illness, is no longer in her place. She made a point about ensuring that consultations happen in accordance with the tides so that fisherfolk will actually be at the consultations and not out at sea. Her point was very interesting because that is not always appreciated.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be implying that the fishing industry is resistant to any conservation measures and would resist the proposed management measures that inevitably have to be brought into the industry. From my experience, the industry itself often proposes changes in order to protect its stock for the future. For example, the Trevose ground closure off the north coast of Cornwall during spring of each year was proposed by the industry itself.

I am sorry if I have given the hon. Gentleman the impression that I think fishing communities would be against this; I do not think that. That is precisely why I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes and for South East Cornwall about the importance of consultation. Look at a case such as Lyme Bay: it was the local community, in consultation with the scientists, who produced the efflorescence that has taken place there. This must be done through the industry co-operating with the scientists.

We should note that MPAs were designed specifically to protect the nature within them from human activity that damaged it, and that includes fishing. It should therefore not be considered a negative that those areas are being protected. The partial ban on destructive dredging and bottom trawling in MPAs has been a success, and I hope it will be extended to a complete ban once the due process and consultation have taken place.

I wish the Minister and his team well in the upcoming negotiations. If he binds himself to the mast of science and turns an Odysseus-like ear to the siren voices urging him to allow greater quota, I cannot promise him popularity, but he would become a unique and respected first voice for common sense and a sustainable future for our industry.

First-hand sales of UK-landed seafood were over £1 billion in 2022, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes said. That is a good reminder that wild-capture seafood is a national resource. It is remarkable that the UK Treasury does not benefit directly and that those that benefit the most are large businesses that have managed to aggrandise themselves via the poorly regulated sale of individual quotas over many years. Small-scale fisherfolk and non-sector vessels are left to fish from the pool that accounts for just 4% of opportunities.

In addition, those big businesses that benefit the most by their control of quota also benefit from the free management of the resource via central and local government funding of the MMO, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Natural England and the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities. It is also clear that big businesses are best placed to make representations and influence policy in a way that a single-handed inshore fisherman simply cannot. A quick scan of successful Government grant applications demonstrates that it is also big business that benefits from grant schemes, with support being provided to companies with turnover in the millions.

The impact of market forces on this national asset has left a handful of families and businesses benefiting the most via consolidation of beneficial ownership of quota, while small-scale fisherfolk and our coastal communities wither and are lost. Depleted stocks and limited funding for robust data collection of all commercial species, leading to precautionary management decisions, are by-products of the current system. I ask the Minister whether it is time for the UK to consider what alternative systems to manage this valuable natural resource could look like.

I welcome the beginnings of transparency that have come about from the publication of quota holdings, but that is only part of the story of who benefits from the amazing national public asset that is our fisheries. We all know that in-year swaps and leases occur. Would the Minister look at completing the transparency exercise and requiring those swaps and leases to be published too? We need a system that is not based on the happenstance history of 40 years ago, when the current quota system was put in place, but that provides opportunity and certainty more equitably. We need a system that links opportunities to compliance with fisheries and conservation regulations and that helps to fund better data gathering and evidence to inform our fisheries resource management —one where a sustainable bounty from the seas ensures that the interests of our small fishing communities, the taxpayer and the planet are aligned.

It has already been said that fishing is one of the most dangerous peacetime occupations. The marine accident investigation branch accident reports make sombre reading, but they also provide an excellent opportunity for learning and change. Multiple capsizes of small vessels over several years led the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to update its codes for small vessel inspections, but reports from around the coast demonstrate that those new regulations appear to be applied inconsistently, and in some cases they run contrary to the marine architect designs and tested vessel stability.

The financial burden of being tied up by an MCA inspection and being required to make modifications to a vessel’s hull can be exceptionally heavy. Owner-operators are forced to sell their vessels and in some cases leave the industry, as they simply cannot afford to comply with an individual inspector’s request. I urge the Minister to speak with his colleagues at the Department for Transport to help convene a group of small-scale fishing vessel safety experts? They can help the DFT and the MCA to better understand the impact of their inspection regimes and to find a coherent approach to that vital work—one that provides a consistent set of outcomes, without the lottery of where a fisherman is based and which inspector they get producing different outcomes on similar vessels. The lack of MCA inspectors means that vessels can often wait weeks for an inspection slot. While a vessel is awaiting reinspection, the fisherman cannot earn. What should be a straightforward process can provide huge financial risk and strain, from which some of those microbusinesses simply cannot recover.

Finally on safety, I draw the Minister’s attention to a simple fact that the last Government seemed to do little to address. The MAIB reports set out the circumstances surrounding each accident and the component elements that led to it. All too often, these accidents are highly predictable and could be prevented by simply conducting good maintenance, onboard training and safe operations. Here, I would interject that the question of English language skills, which we debated earlier, comes into play: English language skills and the ability to communicate with every member of the crew is vital for crew safety.

For the avoidance of doubt, as I might have said in a previous professional existence, nobody is suggesting that a crew should not have English language skills. The question, rather, is about the level those language skills are required to be.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I thought that his points on visas were well-made, but it is important that we put safety at the forefront. Paradoxically, the common denominator that runs through every report is that the crew involved had all attended courses and attained the required safety and training certificate. I gently suggest that it is time for the DFT and the MCA to consider their syllabuses to see whether what is being delivered leaves graduates with the practical understanding they need to transfer to their work environment. I think a review is overdue.

The roll-out of CatchApp and inshore vessel monitoring to the small-scale fleet has been widely seen as a disaster by inshore fishermen. I am told that CatchApp is regularly down, and inshore vessel monitoring systems and approved suppliers are not required to provide robust support in a timely fashion, leading to lost days at sea. The stress and anxiety that those two systems are causing around the coast is palpable. The MMO warned, during the roll-out of both those systems, of the risks of pressing ahead with them before they were fully tested and, in the case of the I-VMS, that not stipulating service levels would leave fisherman at the mercy of the providers. We debated the issue in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee at the time, but the Government simply rode over it. I appreciate that the roll-out programme came under the last Government, but can Ministers urgently investigate what is going wrong with those systems from the user’s standpoint, and what steps the MMO can take to make things work better?

Small-scale fishermen are the beating heart of so many of our coastal communities. Fishing is not a job; it is a way of life, but one where it is increasingly difficult for new entrants to be found or gain appropriate training. Many of today’s fishermen came into the industry via the youth training scheme. It provided college, a small salary and on-the-job training. Some of our country’s finest inshore skippers came via that route, but they are now close to retirement. Only large companies can afford to recruit and invest in new entrants, and over the past decade we have seen a growing reliance on foreign crews. We have heard, and will no doubt hear more, about visa problems. Local apprenticeship courses have met with varying success, but they will not provide the numbers or the pace to replace foreign crews, let alone the fishermen who have reached retirement.

When the Minister considers the successor funding scheme to the fisheries and seafood scheme, I will be grateful if he looks at what more we can do to grow our own talent and build the workforce, particularly for the small-scale fishing fleet. It cannot fund apprentices directly itself, but its members have a lifetime at sea and the knowledge to help to grow that talent.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for this important debate. I particularly thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tribute he paid to our fishermen who face dangers at sea each day—“For those in peril on the sea”. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) referred to the loss of the Solway Harvester; I well remember covering that tragedy as a journalist, and the shadow it cast on the Isle of Whithorn and Kirkcudbrightshire.

My fishing community and the other communities I represent are quite different from those constituencies. The Western Isles account for 22% of the inshore waters in what is mostly an inshore fishery, although that might well have been 0% of Scotland’s inshore fishing grounds if the SNP-Green coalition had got away with its ludicrous plans for highly protected marine areas, which the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) highlighted. Although those plans were defeated, pushed away by a rebellion across Scotland’s coast and the songwriting power of Skipinnish, and have been put away for now, they have created a high level of uncertainty, which means that some fishermen are deciding whether to stay or leave the industry.

In the Western Isles, the picture is mixed and somewhat rosy. We have had some £12 million-worth of tonnage landed in the past couple of years—something like 3,000 tonnes, of which almost 90% is shellfish and only 11% is white fish. Marine Scotland shows that there are 215 registered fishing vessels—small fishing vessels, like those for which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) has just made the case—and something like 290 fishers, or about 7% of Scotland’s national total.

The industry faces many different challenges in different constituencies, but we have a lot in common. I will give some attention to one of the biggest challenges facing the industry and the associated processing sector in the Western Isles. It was a pleasure to go to the annual general meeting of the Western Isles Fishermen’s Association a couple of weeks ago and see so many young faces among the attendees. There are young entrants to the industry, helped by locally administered schemes that encourage entrants. One such scheme is community quotas, which the Western Isles council, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, has bought and which it licenses from quota to new entrants. That all helps people into the fishing industry and has a significant impact.

That glimmer of hope should not mask something that is a problem for the islands’ industry, the Scottish industry and the UK industry: the lack of skilled crews. The demographics in the Western Isles are not good. Although I have talked about young entrants, the working-age population has dropped by 12% over the past 10 years, and there has been a 26% rise in the elderly population. All employers are competing for a reduced number of school leavers, and virtually all sectors are dependent on sourcing migrant labour to grow their business.

The most important ask from the Western Isles fishing industry is that the Minister recognise that there has to be some flexibility in immigration policy to allow the needs and demands of rural and island areas to be accepted. The current sponsored employment scheme seems to have been based on city and urban salaries; it ignores the variation in wages in rural and island communities, which of course are lower and are coupled with increased food, energy and transport costs. I suspect that the £70,000 salary for a processor that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) mentioned has as much to do with the lack of skilled people as it does with the skills involved in doing the job.

Only this week, I had some correspondence from the Isle of Barra. Barratlantic is one of the large seafood processors on our island chain. Christina MacNeil, the general manager, tells me that in 35 years of working in the seafood industry, things have never been more difficult. There is huge demand for langoustine and scallop, but supplying customers is becoming increasingly difficult because of the lack of staff. We can imagine how difficult it is on a small island. She has four Filipino workers, who have been employed there since April 2023; they came through the sponsorship scheme, but given the nature of the work and the lack of available staff, the company needs some flexibility in order to retain them. It can just about manage the salaries now, but if they increased to £38,000 a year the operation would be impossible. The company has been in operation for 50 years, but its future is in the balance because of restrictive immigration schemes.

It is the same for fishermen. It is impossible to employ UK crews, as we know, so they must look overseas. Once again, cost is a criterion, but so too is the visa system. Crews need an English qualification at a very high level, which means that they are almost barred from entry. That creates huge difficulties for fishing boat owners and processors in my constituency.

My plea to the Minister—it is echoed by others such as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), who is no longer in his place, as well as the Migration Advisory Council and almost every coastal community—is that there be flexibility in the visa system. We do not need a separate visa system, as some Scottish colleagues might argue. There is no need to replicate the system: we just need enough flex to take into account the needs of island and rural areas.

In relation to separate systems, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the problems for the fishermen in both our constituencies are shared by fishermen in Kilkeel, around the south-west coast and elsewhere in the country. Does that not rather illustrate the truth that the problem is for the sector rather than for any particular constituent part of the United Kingdom?

That is true. Our problems are not uniquely island problems, nor are they uniquely Scottish problems: they are demographic, economic and social problems for coastal communities around the whole UK. I know that that is not entirely the responsibility of the Minister.

Having risked the ire of the Home Office, rather than the Minister, I will carry on and risk the anger of my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), and possibly of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I am after their tuna, or rather our tuna. One quota for which the Minister does have responsibility is the bluefin tuna stocks, which have increased significantly. Thanks to climate change, bluefin tuna are roaming far north and wild in the Atlantic. There has been a great decade-long catch-and-release scheme around the British coast. The catch is by rod and line, so the catches are selective, of good quality and of the same stock as those caught in other regions of the UK. They have the potential to be a great home market and export market.

The UK was allocated something like 39 tonnes of bluefin tuna in 2023, but so far none of those commercial licences has been granted to a Scottish boat. All 13 were granted to the south-west of England; none of them has come to Scotland, far less to the Hebrides, where operators have set themselves up not just as rod-and-line operators, but potentially as smokers and exporters to the domestic and international markets.

For all the quota to be allocated to one area seems very odd. It is not what we would expect. We might expect weight to be placed on geography and on socioeconomic impacts: a bluefin tuna fishery in the Western Isles would be economically significant. For rod-and-line operators and others who have prepared themselves to turn commercial, it is deeply frustrating to be turned off in that way.

I do not wish to make too much of this, but looking at the other side of it, Scotland has been lucky enough to get the headquarters of GB Energy. Maybe we could think about the alternative as well.

I will turn my attention to GB Energy in a moment. First, I make another appeal to the Minister that from next year onwards the UK ought to allocate commercial bluefin tuna licences not on a “first come, first served” basis, or however the system works, but on a geographic and socioeconomic basis.

While I have the Minister’s ear and we are talking about quotas, let me make an appeal for spurdog fishery, which is managed by the UK Government and allocated on a monthly quota basis to all vessels. Due to the introduction of a management measure banning the landing of individual fish over 100 cm in length, fishermen have been unable to develop a market. All buyers who show an interest in spurdog indicate that they would far rather have spurdog over 100 cm. As a result of the measure, local fishermen end up dumping large fish, which could secure—and, prior to the ban, did secure—higher prices. Some relaxation on the question of permitting the landing of spurdog over 100 cm would at least open a limited marketing opportunity for fishermen on those vessels.

I do not want to wade into the big debate on quotas, on total catch allowances and on 2026—or perhaps I do. I will just wish the Minister well and ask him to consider some of the ideas that my hon. Friend the Member for that famous fishing port Brent West highlighted in his contribution. The quota should belong to no one. It should not be used to enrich those who are already rich from our seas; it should be treated as a national resource and a socioeconomic asset to be distributed according to port, postcode and socioeconomic need. As I say, there should also be a system of community quota, whereby excess quota or new quota is allocated to municipalities or regional development agencies to ensure that it is attached to landing ports and that it creates local jobs in coastal communities.

There has been a lot of talk about GB Energy, spatial squeeze and the conflict between the fishing industry and the new offshore wind farm industry. I understand why the conflict exists. The developments are somewhat controversial, but they would be less controversial if the offshore industry, like the onshore industry, were forced to provide a community benefit or community share or to pay more to the Crown Estate Commission for permission to make wealth from wind, which should, of course, belong to no one. If those funds were allocated regionally and locally, we could address the data deficiency to which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West referred. We could create our own marine research centres in our coastal communities—not necessarily run by the Government, but certainly run by those communities—so that in the competition for data and in arguments with environmentalists and with Governments, we can have the science, we can tell what is in the waters around us and we can tell how the environment is shaping up.

These are leaps of the imagination, perhaps, for the quota system, but they should be considered seriously by the Government and by the fishing industry itself, if fishing is to have a future as well as a past.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing today’s debate on the UK fishing industry. He has been a steadfast supporter of the UK’s fishing communities for many years. I echo his words and those of many others in the debate who have paid tribute to all those who have died at sea, and to the valuable work of the RNLI. Fishing is a subject of huge importance to us Liberal Democrats, not only because of the industry’s economic significance but because of its cultural heritage, its role in sustaining coastal communities and its relationship with the health of our seas.

We have heard today from communities from all around the UK’s coastline, and about many different sectors of this age-old industry. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) talked about resolving the visa issue for fishers, both within and outside the 12-mile zone, which many others referred to as well.

The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) spoke about the importance of fish as a low-carbon, high-protein food source of which we should be consuming more, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) spoke passionately about how we can promote fish and seafood throughout the food chain, and about her brilliant local food-processing industry up in Grimsby.

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) referred beautifully to Cornwall’s proud fishing heritage, and particularly the Fal oysters. On that point, while I have him in the room, I ask the Minister again to reconsider his decision to classify Pacific oysters as an invasive species. They are heading our way anyway—they are going to be here whether we like it or not—so I do not believe that decision makes sense any longer. After all, sheep were once not a native species in the UK; things do change.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—did I get that right?

The hon. Member talked about the importance of encouraging young people into the industry. That is important for us all, wherever we are.

It is clear for us all to see that our fishing communities were deeply let down by the previous Conservative Government, and that the promises made to them in the run-up to Brexit have been badly broken. Instead of the “sea of opportunity”—which the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) optimistically said he thought was possible—the industry has been cast adrift, struggling with increased bureaucracy, reduced market access and rising costs.

We believe fishing communities deserve better. As we enter this annual negotiation period and approach the end of the transition period in 2026, we must learn from the failures of the past and ensure that the mistakes of the terrible, botched Brexit deal are not repeated. As many Members have said, we need multi-annual decision making to give the industry more long-term stability.

Negotiations on fishing quotas must be conducted transparently and be based on the best science available, with fishing communities at the table helping to shape the decisions that will profoundly affect their livelihoods. The Liberal Democrats want a fair deal for fishers—one that sets realistic catch limits, cuts unnecessary bureaucracy, invests in infrastructure and creates opportunities for coastal communities to thrive both on and off the water.

First, we need to tackle the avalanche of red tape that has engulfed the industry for the last few years. The increased paperwork for customs declarations, export processes and landing requirements has created delays, raised costs and caused untold frustration, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) described. Driving from Cornwall to Dover with a piece of paper to comply with an export requirement is utter madness in 2024.

Having to get a qualified vet to personally sign 17 different pieces of paper for one export consignment is also ludicrous, yet that is the reality for Offshore Shellfish, a high-quality mussel farm off the Devon coast—I have written here, “which I had the pleasure of visiting on a very windy day in September”, but I am not sure that it was all pleasure, because it was quite choppy. Mussels cannot afford to be held up by red tape; speed is key when exporting shellfish. We have to cut down on the endless forms that companies are being forced to fill in.

I was involved with the seafood industry in the early days of Brexit as a special adviser with the Scotland Office, and we found that much of the problems with live export, particularly of shellfish and things like langoustines, actually lay on the far side of the channel, rather than our side. I do not know whether it is still the case, but at that time the UK Government had a digital-first presumption to try to take away the pieces of paper the hon. Lady talks about but, in fact, it was those in Europe who insisted on that. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is aware of that.

I am aware that my predecessor used to say it was digital-first and that the paperwork did not exist, but I can tell Members that 17 pieces of paper have to be signed every time Offshore Shellfish wants to do an export consignment. It does not matter which side of the channel that comes from. The point is that it was a bad deal that was badly negotiated, and we should never have put our fish exporters in that position. The Liberal Democrats want a veterinary agreement with the EU to be signed as soon as possible, to simplify the processes.

Secondly, we must invest in the infrastructure needed to keep jobs and value in our coastal communities. By equipping coastal towns with modern processing facilities, we can retain more of the value generated by fishing within those communities, which will help to revitalise local economies, help coastal communities around the UK, and create high-quality employment opportunities, as was so well described by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes.

The future of fishing depends on the health of our seas, which is why sustainability is at the heart of the Liberal Democrat approach. We believe in a science-led system for managing fishing quotas, to ensure that decisions are based on all the available evidence about stock levels and marine biodiversity, not just the headline advice. We need to iron out the mismatches between data and the actual situation in the sea. Only when those two things match will we have the best data and be able to make the best decisions.

The last-minute decision by the previous Government to cut pollack quotas at a stroke showed the Conservatives’ lack of respect for our hard-working fishing communities. Like my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives, I know one skipper who had to sell his boat straight after that decision. It was just the last straw. We must have more long-term decision making so that we do not put people in that situation at the drop of a hat.

We would also establish an innovation fund to support the development of new technologies and practices that reduce environmental harm, while increasing funding for marine conservation projects and expanding the network of marine protected areas—but in consultation with the fishing industry. Protecting our oceans is not just about safeguarding the environment, vital though that is; it is about securing the long-term viability of the fishing industry itself. Nothing is more important to an industry that provides sustainable, quality food, contributes to our nation’s food security and wants to carry on doing that for the long term.

In my constituency of South Devon, fishing is not just an industry but a way of life for many of my constituents. Brixham harbour, one of the busiest and most successful fishing ports in England, is a hub of activity sustaining hundreds of jobs and contributing millions to the local economy. I am grateful to the Minister for his visit in July, which was much appreciated by the fishing community. We see bluefin tuna jumping in our waters, as in the Western Isles.

The challenges facing fishers in South Devon are stark. I have met many skippers in Brixham who shared the immense pressures they are under, from rising fuel costs to navigating the labyrinth of post-Brexit bureaucracy. They are deeply proud of their work and their heritage, but they feel abandoned by successive Governments that have made promises they have failed to keep. We are also facing an acute skilled labour shortage, which many have spoken about. Despite efforts to recruit home-grown talent through apprenticeships and partnerships, we simply do not have enough skilled crews to operate vessels or enough workers for our processors.

As many Members have mentioned, the current visa routes for non-UK workers are wholly inadequate. The transit worker visa, which many smaller operators rely on, does not meet the needs of modern fishing, while the skilled worker visa is unaffordable and impracticable for the industry. Its language requirements alone simply do not recognise the reality of working at sea. I ask the Government to work with the Home Office to create a visa system that meets the needs of the industry and supports its sustainability.

As we review the trade and co-operation agreement, we must look at what has happened. Operating costs have skyrocketed due to Brexit and the pandemic, compounding the challenges for exporters, who are so reliant on EU markets. Administrative burdens and barriers to trade remain a thorn in the industry’s side, and those burdens must be eased and smoother trade with the EU must be prioritised. Better access must be negotiated to weight it more in favour of UK fishers. It would be good to hear from the Minister how his negotiators will prioritise that.

Marine spatial planning, to which many Members have referred, must also properly recognise the value of fishing alongside environmental objectives. The industry supports the goals of the Fisheries Act 2020, but the pace and scale of the changes can sometimes feel overwhelming. That highlights the need for careful consideration of the socioeconomic impacts on fishers and coastal communities. Although we in the Liberal Democrats support an urgent move to renewal energy, is it right that we lease out the UK seabed to develop an industry that will export energy abroad at the cost of the UK fishing industry? Fishing and power can share the sea, but fishers must be properly consulted about the siting of new offshore wind, and there must be a discussion about turbines being located in some of our most lucrative fishing waters.

Looking ahead, I hope the new Labour Government will develop a clear and coherent strategy for the industry that takes into account the interconnectedness of environmental and economic objectives. The 2025 renegotiation of the TCA is an opportunity to address the challenges, and I hope the Government will consider socioeconomic factors when shaping future policy. Fishing communities deserve far better that the neglect they have endured over the past decade.

The Liberal Democrats remain unwavering in our commitment to advocating for practical and meaningful solutions that address the immediate challenges faced by fishing communities. We will continue to push for reforms that not only secure the long-term future of the industry as a whole, both at sea and on land, but protect the environment on which it depends.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is Chair of the EFRA Committee, on securing a debate on such an important topic for fishermen and women in our coastal communities right across the United Kingdom. Fish are one of the most valuable and powerful resources for our country; we must protect, preserve and nurture them, and support the industries that harvest them for us. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are committed to supporting our coastal communities and our fishing industries.

We have had a wide-ranging debate. There have been powerful contributions from across the United Kingdom, and there was a lot of expertise within them. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke powerfully about the negotiations, the importance of science, and the balance between economics and conservation. He also touched on the importance of safety in the industry, a point echoed by many Members.

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about the importance of data and monitoring, while my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), who is a proud champion of her local farming and fishing communities, spoke about the issues of food security and the role fishing plays in that. She talked about spatial squeezing and the TCA negotiations and, at the end of her speech, she talked powerfully about the importance of the RNLI and how much we owe them for keeping people safe at sea.

The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) talked about sustainability, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), who is also a proud champion for both his farming and fishing constituents, talked powerfully about safety and danger in the fishing industry. He also talked about spatial squeezing and gave his expert analysis of the ongoing fishing negotiations, which was welcome.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) talked about the negotiations and the need for a longer-term perspective. She spoke about the importance of the processing industry, which was valuable. I was pleased that she heaped praise on the £100 million UK seafood fund, which was brought in by the Conservative Government in 2021 to support the future and the sustainability of the UK fisheries and seafood sector. I thank her for praising that Conservative policy.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) talked about safety and echoed many of the scientific themes, and the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner)—with whom I served in the previous Parliament on the EFRA Committee, where we received regular briefings from DEFRA about the complexities of the fishing negotiations—talked powerfully about the importance of science and sustainability, data monitoring and the safety implications of fishing.

I will move now to the Western Isles, the name of which I am going to struggle to pronounce, so help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton)—

You can say the Western Isles.

The hon. Member spoke powerfully about safety from his unique perspective representing island and rural communities, and he talked passionately about the appeals for quotas to the Minister as well.

It is important to highlight the benefits that we can and should reap following our departure from the European Union. For our fishing industry, that departure gave us the opportunity to increase our fishing quotas, which I am pleased the last Conservative Government took advantage of. As Members will be aware, the last Government began the process of replacing the EU’s common fisheries policy, which I think we agree was flawed, with a new bespoke framework for UK fisheries.

Six fisheries management plans were consulted on, covering major species, including bass, scallop, lobster and crab. The last Government negotiated quotas of 750,000 tonnes in 2024, an 80,000 tonne increase compared with 2023 that was expected to deliver a £70 million boost for the fishing industry. Can the Minister provide clarity, for the sector and for Members present, on what the Government hope to achieve in the quotas for next year and how they will approach negotiations for 2026 and into the future?

A significant fear is that the Government will use fishing as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the EU. Can the Minister quash those rumours now and assure our fishing communities across the United Kingdom that this Government will not let them down, as they are currently doing to farmers with their policies on the family farm tax on inheritance? We would like some reassurance from the Minister on that point.

The new Government have published consultations for the next five fisheries management plans, which I welcome. Can the Minister confirm that they will remain live documents, constantly open to review, updates and improvements, to ensure that those FMPs reach their objectives?

As has been said, in December 2021, the Conservative Government allocated £100 million specifically to support the long-term future of our UK fishing sector, supporting job creation and boosting seafood exports to new markets. Can the Minister clarify whether the Government will continue with that support or provide any additional funding to benefit the long-term future of the UK fishing sector? Can the Minister also commit to publishing an impact assessment of the Government’s new labour and employment reforms, including the increase in national insurance contributions and its specific impact on the fishing industry, including the fish processing sector and coastal communities?

I am also keen to press the Minister on several issues that we encountered on the EFRA Committee in areas that I led on in certain respects. I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity on the Government’s position today, not least because the sector has been waiting with considerable concern following the general election, as Labour’s manifesto was pretty short on fishing—in fact, it failed to mention it at all.

Last year, in the last Parliament, the EFRA Committee published its cross-party report on marine mammals, after an inquiry that I triggered. The report highlighted the issue of bycatch, in which seals, dolphins and other sea life are tragically snarled in fishing gear. Sadly, it is estimated that more than 650,000 marine mammals die each year from being needlessly caught worldwide, including more than 1,000 cetaceans in UK waters.

The last Government consulted on the introduction of remote electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring systems utilise a range of technology, including cameras, gear sensors, GPS units and more. The last Government began to implement electronic monitoring systems in all priority fisheries, with the aim of achieving that by 2029. Those monitoring systems apply to all vessels over 10 metres in length and active within fisheries in English waters, including non-UK vessels.

Once we were satisfied that the implementation issues had been resolved for each priority fishery, the plan was to make it mandatory to have such systems installed. It was noted that there would be two years’ notice to give vessels time to adapt and for installation to take place. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do in that regard? Does that remain the plan? What are the timescales?

Marine Management Organisation rules state that fishermen and women in UK waters must self-report all cetacean bycatch within 48 hours of their fishing journey, but very few reports are submitted. According to the MMO, six marine mammals were reported by fishing vessels as bycatch injury or mortality in 2023. In stark contrast, the previous Government’s bycatch monitoring programme estimated that between 502 and 1,560 harbour porpoises, 165 to 662 common dolphins, and 375 to 872 seals—both grey and harbour—were captured as bycatch in UK fisheries in 2019. Does the Minister agree that that suggests there is significant under-reporting of cetacean and other marine mammal bycatch? Will the Minister clarify what the Government are doing to improve the monitoring, reporting and prevention of such tragic and upsetting bycatch?

I have worked closely with Whale and Dolphin Conservation, the World Cetacean Alliance, the Sussex Dolphin Project and the Blue Marine Foundation, which are great organisations that seek to make fishing safer for the marine mammals that share the seas and oceans that we harvest fish from. Will the Minister commit to working with such organisations to tackle this issue, which unites us in humanity? No one wants to see those air-breathing mammals horrifically caught up by the fishing industry.

The UK has a very important role to play as a global soft power. Like all Members, I am strongly opposed to the hunting of any cetaceans—dolphins, whales or porpoises. There is no humane way to kill a whale, so that barbaric practice must end. Although there is a tradition in the Faroe Islands of killing pilot whales and dolphins for meat and other products, the previous Government long expressed their concern about the welfare issues surrounding those cetacean hunts and the domestic regulation currently in place. Ministers in the previous Government urged the Faroe Islands to look at alternatives to the hunting of dolphins and encouraged its representatives to consider the many economic and social benefits that responsible cetacean watching can bring to coastal communities.

During the joint committee on trade with the Faroe Islands in 2022, Ministers raised the UK’s opposition to the continued hunting of dolphins in the Faroe Islands on animal welfare and conservation grounds. I therefore hope the Minister will confirm that the new Government will uphold the previous Government’s position and use every appropriate opportunity to advocate for the end of cetacean hunts in the Faroe Islands.

This issue sadly stretches further than the Faroe Islands. Horrifically, whaling is still practised in various countries, including Norway, Iceland and Japan. Will the Minister outline how the Government are approaching countries that still conduct whaling?

The hon. Gentleman missed out the United States of America from that list.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

What steps are the Government taking in international negotiations to stop that cruel practice? When negotiating fishing arrangements, trade deals or anything else, UK diplomats and Ministers must make the ethical case to countries that those unacceptable practices must end. Can the Minister reassure the House that the new Labour Government will continue to play their part on the world stage to end whaling once and for all?

It is important to work collaboratively with our international partners to ensure that global waters can thrive. Sustainability in fishing is pivotal to preserve these diverse ecosystems. Indeed, using a scientific, evidence-based approach that ensures high ecological and environmental standards in fishing from all fishing countries is paramount for sustaining our precious seas and oceans and ensuring responsible global trade.

I welcome the introduction of highly protected marine areas that protect all species, habitats and associated ecosystem processes within the site boundary, including the seabed and the water column. HPMAs allow the protection and full recovery of marine ecosystems. By setting aside some areas of the sea with high levels of protection, HPMAs allow nature to fully recover to a more natural state, and allow the ecosystem to thrive. Can the Minister update Members on the Government’s plans regarding the development of HPMAs?

I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about HPMAs. Does he agree that the Government in Whitehall should learn the lessons from the experience of the Government in Edinburgh? That is, if we are to move to that level of protection, it is of primary importance that the communities that are going to be most closely affected are brought along as part of the process, rather than it just being visited on communities in a top-down closure that would result in the economic ruin we would have seen in Scotland.

I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. I agree that it is important to have joined-up thinking across the United Kingdom, and that communities should be consulted. If we are designating different areas of our seas and oceans, we should make sure that harvesting the sea goes in parallel with conserving it.

It is important to touch on how dangerous fishing is, an issue that has been spoken about powerfully by many Members across the Chamber today. It is undeniably a dangerous and demanding industry, so I welcome measures to improve safety in fishing. There is more that we need to do, and today’s debate has shone a light on that. I urge the Government to move ahead on a cross-party basis to see what we can do to make this industry much safer.

The hon. Member for Brent West touched on the stress and anxiety within the profession, and I want to touch briefly on mental health. The mental health of our fishing communities is very fragile, because it is such a tough and unsafe industry, there are financial pressures, and those communities do not know what is going to happen as the negotiations move forward.

The statistics show that people who are struggling with their mental health are more likely to have accidents, certainly in the farming sector, and the same is probably true in the fishing industry. It is important to acknowledge that and to support the mental health of our fishing communities. I commend the work of several charities that help in this area, such as the Bearded Fishermen Charity, Fishermen’s Mission, FishWell and the Angling Trust. All those charities do an amazing job in working with fishermen and women to support their mental health. Will the Minister join me in commending their work, and outline what specific support he believes can be put in place—as a Government and on a cross-party basis—to support our fishing communities with their mental health? If we want sustainability of fishing, we need to have sustainability among the people who work in that profession. We need to nurture it and support it moving forward.

To conclude, fishermen and women, fish processors and coastal communities all do incredibly tough and dedicated work to help the UK’s food security, as has been powerfully said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan and by Members on both sides of the Chamber. The work that they do is important for feeding the nation with healthy, locally sourced and locally processed food that is key to a balanced diet. Mike Cohen, chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, has said:

“The costs of doing business as a fisher and the rewards to be obtained from it also need consideration in government policy.”

I hope that the Minister agrees, and that the views of all the key fishing stakeholders and communities will always be considered at the heart of future policymaking.

It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq.

I start by thanking the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is the Chair of the Select Committee, not only for securing this debate—a really important one, which has been conducted in a civil and constructive way, and I look forward to similar discussions throughout this Parliament—but for his continuing commitment to championing the fishing industry, of which he is extremely knowledgeable.

Orkney and Shetland are crucial parts of the UK seafood industry, and their rich fishing grounds and aquaculture sites provide quality produce that is in demand across Europe and beyond. Back in the summer, I was very pleased to visit the area. In fact, while listening to many of the contributions to the debate, I realised that I have had the pleasure of visiting the constituencies of many Members who have spoken today.

We have heard some excellent speeches today, including the excellent sales job by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), who gave a powerful account of the importance of fish processors. We also heard a point that is perhaps not widely understood—that so much of the fish we consume is, sadly, not caught by our own fishing fleet but frozen and brought here from other countries.

There was also strong representation from Scotland and the south-west of England. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) made a similarly strong sales job. In passing, I thank Chris Ranford and the others who made me so welcome in Cornwall back in the summer. When I was in Shetland, I also had the pleasure to hear directly from some of the organisations there—the Scottish Fishermen’s Association and the Shetland Fish Producers Organisation. There are many people to whom I am grateful for informing me about this hugely important, hugely complicated issue.

I was struck by the comments about the safety issues, and indeed the danger that the people working in the industry face. Fishing is a really difficult and dangerous job. One of my first visits to a fishing area was to King’s Lynn, in my own part of the country. I remember standing on the quayside on a very cold January morning, looking at the relatively small craft setting out into the grey and thinking, “This looks like a very, very tough job.” It really is, and of course the risks involved have been outlined very well by several Members today. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who secured and introduced the debate, made the point about the risks involved very strongly, as did the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper). The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) also outlined those risks. I am very grateful to him, not only for his warm words today, but for his warm welcome when I visited his constituency.

We should all thank the people who do these tough jobs. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch published its 2023 annual report in October, sadly reporting on a year in which three fishing vessels were lost, with the loss of four lives. Those are four tragedies—far too many. We also heard today, from other speakers, about tragedies in the past. Having said all that, I think the industry deserves praise for its efforts to improve safety. That good work must continue, including, as a priority, addressing concerns flagged by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch about potential under-reporting of incidents.

I will try to address the points made by Members today, but I will start by setting out some of the Government’s priorities, because that information was sought by several Members.

We absolutely recognise that the fishing and seafood industry is culturally a significant part of the UK and integral to many communities, particularly our more remote coastal communities. Our fishing fleet and the associated onshore activities play an important role in boosting the growth of regional and coastal economies, including providing jobs. The industry also plays a vital role in our food security, bringing a nutritious source of food to dinner tables across the country. My job title is the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, and I see the fishing sector as playing a vital role in feeding the nation.

Through our fisheries management and our international responsibilities, the UK is absolutely committed to managing our fisheries in a sustainable way—a point that was echoed in virtually every contribution today. By meeting our responsibilities, we will support a vibrant, profitable and sustainable fishing industry alongside a productive and healthy marine environment. I think that goal of achieving a balance is shared by everyone.

What we now have, as an independent coastal state, is the ability to pursue our own approach to managing fisheries, both at home and on the international stage. We want to work increasingly closely with the industry to ensure that we deliver the best outcome for the UK. I will come back to this point: I am really keen that we co-create policy with those who are impacted by it. That point is made repeatedly by the Secretary of State.

On consultation, too many meetings are held in the middle of the day in the middle of the week. That creates a huge burden for some of the fishers that want to attend them. They are often held in Newlyn or Brixham, the main centres, which can create logistical challenges for those wanting to voice their views on the formation of fisheries management plans. Will the Minister consider that when trying to reach a more hand-in-glove consultation with our fishing communities?

My hon. Friend makes an important point—one that I used to make when in opposition, and one that I have impressed on officials. The effort has been made to ensure that is considered wherever possible. It is not always easy to find the right times, but we are doing everything we can.

This Government will always back the British fishing industry. We are absolutely keen to boost trade, deliver benefits to UK businesses and push for sustainable fishing opportunities for British vessels; but we recognise the huge challenges that the sector is facing and are engaging closely with industry to create a more secure, sustainable and economically successful fishing industry that we believe will in turn support local communities.

On some of the specifics raised around post-2026 access, as I am sure hon. Members will be aware, a full and faithful implementation of the fisheries heading of the trade and co-operation agreement will see access for EU vessels to the UK zone become a matter for annual negotiation to sit alongside our annual consultations on catch limits with a range of coastal states and international fora on fishing opportunities. That is significant. We will always listen to what the EU has to say on the matter, but we are absolutely determined to protect the interests of our fishers and continue to fulfil our international commitments to protect the marine environment.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly asked who would be leading those discussions; they will be led by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office. He asked who would speak up for UK fishers; the answer is the UK Fisheries Minister, which is me. I admired the slight cheek of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) in challenging me not to let fishers down in those negotiations. I do not want to dwell on past misery, but let us say we are determined to do much better.

Does the Minister not acknowledge that in the last year, the tonnage secured for the United Kingdom was greater, and that was one of the benefits of the negotiations? Does he not acknowledge the fact of tonnage?

I recognise that there have been some opportunities—not many, but some—and we will do our very best to make more of them. But I do not get a general sense that people in the fishing sector look back and think that was our finest hour. We can do better.

Our ambitions for fisheries are no longer tied to the EU common fisheries policy.

I should have intervened earlier. The Minister is making a strong point. On the back of that, all we have to do is talk to the pollack fisherman in Cornwall to find out how they feel about what has happened in the last year.

Indeed. I am not sure that the two things are directly related, but having spoken to the pollack fisherman I am under no illusion about how difficult the situation they face is. There was a series of reasons why they had particular problems.

We now have the opportunity to set our own objectives for the UK fishing industry. As I have already set out, we want a thriving, sustainable fishing industry in the future.

I will turn to our ongoing negotiations with the European Union. Fishing opportunities for 2025 for jointly managed stocks between the UK and EU are under negotiation as we speak. I suspect Members know this well, but it is an important and complex agreement covering 74 quota stocks and arrangements for non-quota stocks, too. In those negotiations, as in others, we balance the objectives of the Fisheries Act 2020 and the joint fisheries statement to achieve outcomes that can support both the environmental and economic sustainability of our fisheries. That has been referenced extensively, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), but we start with the best scientific advice, including advice on maximum sustainable yield where that is available.

Members have also raised the so-called UK-EU-Norway trilateral negotiations, which are also taking place as we speak, in Oslo. We are hoping that they will come to a conclusion before the end of the week. They secure around a third of the UK’s quota opportunities. The UK’s objectives will include following the scientific advice closely in setting those quotas and securing workable arrangements on northern shelf cod.

In recent years, fish and chip shops have—excuse the pun—taken rather a battering. Will the Minister comment on what he is doing to ensure that my constituents, and indeed those of all Members, will be able to continue tucking into that tasty British staple?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the challenge facing the fish and chip shop sector. They are an iconic part of our national landscape, and they have indeed suffered heavily from rising costs. These negotiations are really important, but let us all send out a clear message of our strong support for the future of the UK fish and chip shop sector.

I will turn to the annual bilateral negotiations with Norway and the Faroes, which are also in progress; it is a busy time of year, as Members probably realise. Those negotiations focus on quota exchanges and access to each other’s waters. I made a point earlier about the Secretary of State wanting to encourage co-design. When he was appointed in July, he made it clear that he wanted to improve the way DEFRA engages with stakeholders, and put more emphasis on co-delivering its policies and programmes in partnership with them. In that spirit, I have asked sectoral groups for this year’s UK-Norway fisheries negotiations to send proposed quota exchanges to the Government, and if deemed viable, they will be presented to Norway. I am determined that we try to do things differently and make the co-delivery model work.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes will be listening closely to this point. I know that UK Fisheries, and Members representing constituencies around Humberside, will be particularly interested in those negotiations to secure distant water fishing opportunities. I value the contribution that UK Fisheries makes to the UK fisheries and seafood sector. It is an important part of the UK fishing industry, but we need to remember that the total allowable catch for Arctic cod—one of the main stocks that the company has historically targeted in the Arctic—has fallen dramatically in recent years. It is down by about 60% since 2021, and the TAC is now at its lowest level since the early ’90s. Securing a large amount of Arctic cod for that sector is extremely challenging against the backdrop of a rapidly declining stock.

There was also a reference, quite rightly, to the fisheries management plan programme; the hon. Member for Epping Forest asked me to say a bit about that. We are grateful for the support of the fishing sector and wider stakeholders in helping shape those plans. We completely support them and think they are the right way forward. They have been developed collaboratively with the industries, and they will play a crucial role in supporting the long-term sustainability of businesses and delivering growth in coastal communities.

It is interesting that the plans are now internationally recognised as a gold standard in managing fisheries; I give credit to the previous Government for their work on that. They protect, and, where necessary, set out to maintain or restore fish stocks to sustainable levels. We are currently consulting on our next batch of fisheries management plans. I acknowledge that it is sometimes a challenge for people in the sector to keep up with all the work, but it is important and we are committed to working closely with people to co-design sustainable fisheries management policies, including implementing the short, medium and long-term actions set out in some of those plans.

We laid our first fisheries management plan-related statutory instrument on 16 October. That implements actions from our first fisheries management plans, many of which included suggestions from the industry. Beyond that, we are also progressing a wider set of other fisheries management reforms that are in line with our own domestic priorities as an independent coastal state. That touches on some of the points that Members have raised: the way we manage discards and the introduction of remote electronic monitoring.

On the powerful points made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest around cetacean catches, I absolutely share his concern. We are committed to continuing with remote electronic monitoring. It has started to be introduced. We think it has a real potential to transform how we get the better data that many Members have referred to. In the future it could inform the science, improve traceability and improve fisheries management. We are working to implement remote electronic monitoring in priority fisheries over the next five years. We will start with volunteers to design and test systems. We started work this summer with volunteers in the large pelagic trawl fishery on the Frank Bonefaas, the largest vessel in the fleet, primarily targeting mackerel, herring and blue whiting.

I very much hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about the concern that many of our constituents raise about the Faroe cetacean hunts. I assure him that Ministers continue to make that point strongly to our colleagues in the Faroes.

I am grateful that the Minister is acknowledging the importance of protecting marine mammals while harvesting from the seas and oceans. When he is around the table with his officials, will he address the other countries, such as Norway? Perhaps it will be his colleagues in the Department for International Trade when they are negotiating arrangements with Japan. On talking about the horrific nature of whaling continuing in the 21st century, can he assure everyone that this UK Government will stand firm and use their power in those rooms to put an end to whaling right across the world?

I think we can speak with one voice from this Parliament on those kinds of issues. I assure the hon. Gentleman that at events such as the G20 and the G7 that I have attended, we have raised those important questions.

I turn to the coastal state negotiations on quota shares.

Before the Minister does that, could he look at what we might learn from the American fish management plans, which are gold standard and have had the clear management objectives that, I am afraid, many of ours lack?

I will certainly look at that. These are relatively early days in the fisheries management plans. A huge amount of work has had to be done quite quickly. We have established a good structure to look to the future—a much better way than in the past.

On the quota shares, it is because we are now an independent coastal state that we have the right to negotiate with coastal states in the north-east Atlantic on management measures for mackerel, blue whiting and Atlanto-Scandian herring. Those are important stocks for the UK that have been overfished in recent years because there are no sharing arrangements in place between the coastal states. We continue to push for comprehensive quota-sharing arrangements that are in the best interests of stock sustainability and of the UK catching and processing sectors. We see the three-way management arrangement with Norway and the Faroes that we signed in June this year as an important stepping stone towards securing a fully comprehensive deal on mackerel.

Almost all the speeches touched on the very challenging issue of marine spatial prioritisation. We know that considerable pressure is being put on the fishing sector by all the competing demands in our seas. And we know the seas are going to get busier over the coming decades. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) and the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) both raised those points. We absolutely need to factor in increasing spatial pressures and new activities such as the growth of new types of energy.

As a Government, we will very carefully consider the evidence marshalled by the cross-Government marine spatial prioritisation programme for English waters. Lots of work is ongoing on this. I am absolutely determined that we have a full and open debate and dialogue because it is such a complicated issue, and I am very grateful for the constructive engagement we are having with industry representatives.

I move on to labour shortages, which, again, were raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and others. We are, of course, aware of the concerns about labour shortages in the sector. Members spoke about the opportunities being there, if only we had the people to do the work—I thought that was very telling. My Department is working with industry to understand what we can do to alleviate those shortages, but they have to be understood in the context of our wider immigration policy objectives. I am sure Members will understand that there is an ongoing dialogue with the Home Office on that.

I pledge that we will work closely with industry to understand people’s labour needs—including, of course, what can be done to make the industry more attractive to the domestic labour market, which is an issue that people have worked hard on. The points made on training were really quite uplifting; it was very good to hear about the work being done in Grimsby, for example.

What will the Government do to assist with training for the fishing fleets, not least in landlocked areas? In the west of England, we are very keen to promote training for things that are not necessarily associated only with our area. Are the Government having any discussions with metro mayors and others with large budgets for training and skills?

I will happily have a discussion with anyone who has a large budget at the moment, so yes—I will happily come and have a discussion with any mayors who are interested. We have also recently launched the UK seafood careers project, which works closely with industry and across Government and the devolved Administrations to look at how the sector can improve the recruitment and retention of UK workers. Please be assured: we are in constant dialogue and discussion with colleagues in the Home Office and in the education sector to see what we can do on this matter.

I will pick up another point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on enforcement and illegal fishing. We absolutely condemn any illegal fishing taking place anywhere, but particularly in English and UK waters—this is partly a devolved issue. We work closely as a Department with the Marine Maritime Organisation, the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and other organisations. In fact, I was talking to the Marine Maritime Organisation about this matter only yesterday. We use a risk-based and intelligence-led marine enforcement model and carry out regular inspections in ports, onshore and at sea, which should ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place to enforce fisheries regulations and protect our waters. I was very interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s account of the approach taken in Ireland, and I will look closely at that.

Does the Minister actually believe that the discard ban is being observed? If he has doubts about that, would he agree that ensuring there are onboard cameras and monitoring is the best way to put an end to that element of illegal fishing?

I very much hear what my hon. Friend says. I agree that the evidence rather suggests that we could do much better, which is why we are making that commitment to remote electronic monitoring.

I am coming close to a conclusion, Dr Huq. Many have talked about support for inshore fishers, and we are absolutely determined to do more. We are looking at the role of the inshore and under-10 metre fleet and at how best we can support them. We think a number of initiatives will benefit them; we are looking at provision of additional quota and new quota trials, which we believe will help the fleet in the long run. We are engaging with the five regional fisheries groups set up for inshore fishers to discuss concerns with policymakers and regulators, helping to identify problems, contribute to policy development and secure solutions. Certainly on my trips around the shores of this country, I have been struck by the concerns that people have and the points raised about some of the boat inspections. Obviously, that is a responsibility of the Department for Transport, but I continue to pursue that.

I have been struck also by the calls from key figures in the fishing industry, including Mike Cohen from the NFFO, for a proper fisheries strategy. I am very interested to talk to stakeholders in the industry in more detail about what that might look like—again, in the spirit of collaboration and co-design that we want to introduce.

I thank hon. Members. This has been a really informative and useful debate. Things have been raised that I will take away and raise with officials today. As I said at the beginning, I recognise just how tough this industry is because of the work involved and the safety issues, but I also recognise that it feels particularly tough as an industry at the moment. It is hard. But I genuinely think there are real opportunities ahead for the fishing sector, and this Government are absolutely committed to making the most of them to ensure that the industry can best contribute to our country’s food security and economic growth.

I thank you, Dr Huq, and Mr Efford for your efforts in chairing us. We have had a genuinely excellent debate. Somewhere in the region of 19 Members of Parliament have taken part. I observe in passing that we have outlasted not one but two main debates in the main Chamber, plus petitions and an Adjournment debate. If that does not make the case for us retaking our rightful place in the main Chamber next year, I do not know what does.

I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive response to the debate. It will gladden his heart to know that I am confident that the Select Committee will be wanting to run the rule over quite a lot of the material that we have had here today. I genuinely thank all Members who have taken part, because it is important that we understand that this is not a contest between urban communities and fishing communities. There is an interest for all of us to be served here.

Finally, in response to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), I place on the record a little bit of context: for the last three years we have set quotas for North sea haddock and whiting well below the ICES advice, and that was supported by the fishing industry. We all have opportunities to learn from one another.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the fishing industry.