Fisheries and the marine environment

While we welcome the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund, the government has not clearly set out its rationale for committing £360 million over 12 years. The timeframe aligns with revised reciprocal access arrangements between the UK and EU, but it is unclear why this duration is the most suitable for investment planning or how the funding level was calculated. Including coastal community priorities within the Fund’s remit reflects the close link between fishing activity and local economic wellbeing, but the government has not demonstrated why this is best delivered through a new, single integrated scheme. While the Fund provides an opportunity for growth, resilience and competitiveness of the sector, it lacks clear objectives to track progress. (Conclusion, Paragraph 7)

The government should provide this Committee with the analysis supporting the £360 million funding level, the 12-year duration and whatever the profile of this spending is expected to be over that period, including the reasons for establishing a new scheme rather than building on existing ones. It should also set out its rationale for integrating community investment and define measurable longterm outcomes for growth, resilience and competitiveness to enable a proper assessment of progress over the lifespan of the Fund. (Recommendation, Paragraph 8)

The government clearly recognises the strong relationship between fishing activity and coastal community wellbeing. Evidence shows that challenges such as inadequate port infrastructure and limited skills and training pathways require targeted support to sustain active fishing communities. The Fund’s priorities for its first year reflect this need. However, from the second year, the Fund will cover a broader set of priorities and delivery will not be limited to the current Fisheries and Seafood Scheme (FaSS) framework administered by the Marine Management Organisation. (Conclusion, Paragraph 9)

Priority should be given to projects driven by active fishing communities during the Fund’s 12 years of operation. This principle should be embedded in any expanded delivery model or in any new scheme developed, with 26 clear and measurable criteria to ensure support continues to strengthen the fishing sector and the communities that rely on it. Priorities of the Fund from year two onwards should include fleet modernisation that reduces carbon emissions and does not increase fishing capacity beyond sustainable levels as well as the development of place-based fishing advisory services. (Recommendation, Paragraph 10)

No Parliament can bind its successor and therefore front-loading the 12-year investment would better support ambitious, multi-year projects and deliver early benefits. Current plans for the Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund provide £165 million up to 2030–31, yet England’s first-year allocation is just £22.6 million, less than one-twelfth of the £304 million allocated to England over the lifetime of the fund. (Conclusion, Paragraph 14)

In response to this report, the government should set out the year-by-year allocation of the budget in England for the next four years and clarify how funding will be provided to the devolved administrations through the block grant, including whether this will be annual, front-loaded, or issued as a single payment to be profiled independently. (Recommendation, Paragraph 15)

We welcome the scale of engagement carried out in developing the Fund and note clear evidence that stakeholder views have informed its early design, such as the introduction of competitive rounds in the first year of the fund. However, there were significant gaps in representation that must be addressed in future engagement exercises. (Conclusion, Paragraph 16)

From year two onward, delivery of the Fund will not be limited to the Fisheries and Seafood Scheme and will incorporate a broader range of priorities such as community projects which are potentially beyond the remit of what the current schemes, and the Marine Management Organisation, deliver. (Conclusion, Paragraph 17)

Industry engagement should continue at a consistent level in the development of the Fund from year two onwards and be expanded to include additional fisheries groups and representatives from Cornwall. In response to this report, the government should set out whether, from year two of the fund onwards, it intends to develop a single new system that incorporates both traditional FaSS activity and the wider Fund priorities, or whether it will use a two-tier delivery model. The government should specify the proportion of the Fund that will be allocated to each priority area, and which organisations will be responsible for delivery in England. (Recommendation, Paragraph 18)

The allocation of the Fisheries and Coastal Growth Fund through the Barnett formula is inconsistent with model preferred by industry stakeholders in all parts of the United Kingdom. We are concerned that it does not reflect the relative scale, distribution or needs of the fishing industry across the UK. In 27 the absence of any proper explanation by the government of why the total sum that has been allocated to the fund was chosen, or for the duration of the scheme itself, it is impossible for anyone to have confidence that there is political or fiscal integrity in the thinking behind the scheme. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund provides a precedent for region-specific funding using bespoke metrics. Collaborative implementation and administration should have been possible and would have been in the best interests of fishing communities. Beyond the fact that the Scottish Government demanded that administration of the fund should be devolved, there is no obvious reason for the departure from previous practice. Engagement with the devolved administrations is important, but should not replace early, meaningful engagement with the industry. For the UK Government to engage respectfully and meaningfully with the devolved administrations is important, but that is no substitute for early, meaningful engagement with the industry. (Conclusion, Paragraph 22)

It is not credible for any devolved administration to demand devolution of a scheme and then to complain about the financial consequences of them being given what they asked for. It is difficult not to see this as a demand that was driven by the politics of the constitution rather than effective fisheries management. (Conclusion, Paragraph 23)

Going forward, the UK Government should work collaboratively with the devolved administrations on the design and allocation of the Fund to ensure consistency and fairness across the sector for the allocations in year two. Seafish should be used to support a coherent UK-wide approach. (Recommendation, Paragraph 24) Communication and trust

Trust between government and the fishing industry has been damaged by successive administrations. Rebuilding that trust is essential if the sector is to deliver its full economic potential for the individuals and communities it supports. Fishers are calling for a stronger voice in the decisions that affect them. Although the government has acknowledged the importance of partnership and communication in developing resilience within the sector, the perception among fishers is that this is not happening in practice. (Conclusion, Paragraph 27)

Defra should require all officials working on fisheries policy, funding schemes and regulatory design to undertake regular, in-person engagement at ports and with those operating active fishing vessels. This programme should mirror the department’s existing initiative 28 to place civil servants on farms, ensuring that officials have a clear, practical understanding of the operational realities of the fishing industry. (Recommendation, Paragraph 28)

We welcome Defra’s trials of regional seafood planning in England, but more benefits will arise if the scope and participation of the trials are broadened to better capture the full range of perspectives from fishing communities and the wider seafood sector. This will enable policy to be shaped more effectively around the realities and needs of those it affects. (Conclusion, Paragraph 29)

Defra should establish a UK-wide network of Regional Fisheries Management Forums, comprising of fishers, marine scientists and environmental organisations. These forums should meet at least three times a year, with minutes published within 20 working days, and be given a formal role in reviewing and commenting on any draft technical measures or policies affecting UK waters. As many fisheries decisions have UK-wide implications, the forums should operate on a UK-wide basis and be empowered to submit timely written recommendations to the relevant administration, with Defra required to respond formally to those in England before each forum’s next planned meeting. (Recommendation, Paragraph 30)

Communication and engagement with the fishing industry on the outcomes of the annual UK–EU consultations for 2026 regarding changes to technical measures were inadequate, with unclear messaging on implementation timelines and confusion even among delivery bodies. This has left industry without reliable information on changes that directly affect their operations. (Conclusion, Paragraph 32)

In response to this report, Defra should provide the Committee with a clear written account of its engagement with the fishing industry following the release of the December 2025 UK–EU fisheries written record. This should set out the dates and stakeholders involved, how the new technical measures and deadlines were communicated and whether the flexibility around the 1 June 2026 implementation date was explicitly conveyed. The department should also urgently publish a confirmed implementation timeline for the new technical measures for vessels operating in UK waters, alongside detailed steps it is taking to support industry to prepare for and implement the new requirements. (Recommendation, Paragraph 33)

Those who are regulated need clear visibility of how that regulation is being enforced, so it is concerning that the MMO no longer routinely publishes its enforcement data in its annual reports, despite continuing to collect it. While we welcome the MMO sharing a snapshot of this data with us and reviewing its publication procedures, fishers and the wider industry must also be able to access this information each year. (Conclusion, Paragraph 36) 29

In the interests of transparency, the MMO must include inspection rates and enforcement outcomes in its annual reports beginning with the 2025–26 report. In response to this Report, it should also retrospectively publish inspection data and outcomes for the previous three years to enable meaningful comparison, assessment of trends, and scrutiny of improvements. (Recommendation, Paragraph 37) Spatial squeeze

There is growing spatial conflict between fisheries, offshore energy, conservation and other marine users, yet current governance arrangements still lack a coherent “shore-to-sea” approach. Defra’s Marine Spatial Prioritisation programme (MSPri) remains opaque and underused, The Crown Estate’s Marine Delivery Routemap has a limited remit focused on the seabed, and the UK-wide Marine Policy Statements are outdated. Together, these policies fail to provide clear and consistent direction for the management of marine space. A single, comprehensive UK- wide sea use framework is therefore required to bring these strands together, offering clarity, predictability and a consistent basis for decision-making, co-location and conflict resolution across all sectors. (Conclusion, Paragraph 48)

In response to this report, the government should confirm its commitment to development of a ‘Sea Use Framework’. It should set out a clear timetable for developing such a Framework, which should follow a similar structure and methodology to the Land Use Framework and be created in collaboration with all sea users. This Framework must integrate the needs of fishing and coastal communities alongside environmental and energy priorities. It should include a formal mechanism enabling coastal communities to participate in decisions that affect them, and should address the use of the seabed, the shore, and the wider marine environment. Development of the Framework should be undertaken jointly with the devolved administrations to ensure a coherent, UK-wide approach. (Recommendation, Paragraph 49)

Spatial squeeze poses significant and growing challenges, with an increasing number of sectors competing for limited marine space. Although initiatives such as the MSPri programme are intended to inform cross- departmental policy and planning, the absence of any reference to fishing or environmental protection in the North Sea Future Plan, despite its ambition to support a prosperous and sustainable future for the region, shows that this approach is failing. Confirmation that the MSPri programme was not used in the development of the Plan, despite being explicitly referenced within it, further undermines confidence in the purpose and effectiveness 30 of the programme. The MSPri programme is of little value if it is not used consistently, or at all, across departments when planning activity in the marine environment. (Conclusion, Paragraph 50)

Defra should introduce an annual reporting process which details the use of the Marine Spatial Prioritisation programme (MSPri). The first report, covering activity during 2025–26, should be published within six months of the publication of this Report. Thereafter, annual MSPri reports should be published by 1 July each year, with the first full annual cycle completed by 1 July 2027. Each report should, as a minimum, set out: • the projects, plans and policy decisions in which MSPri was used during the reporting period; • which government departments used MSPri, and the specific purposes for which it informed their work; • how MSPri was applied in the development of each relevant plan or programme; • an explanation of any cases where MSPri was not used, despite relevance, and the rationale for its omission; • a record of the stakeholders and departments attending MSPri governance meetings, working groups or workshops; and • a summary of all engagement activities undertaken by the programme during the reporting period, including the locations, dates and types of engagement (such as workshops, site visits, or community meetings). To strengthen transparency and public confidence in interdepartmental decision-making, Defra should also commit to publishing the MSPri Programme Board minutes no later than two months after each meeting. (Recommendation, Paragraph 51)

Defra should work with DESNZ to publish, within six months of the government response to this Report, an addendum to the North Sea Future Plan that explicitly sets out how fishing interests and marine environmental protections are assessed and incorporated into decisions affecting the sustainability of the North Sea. (Recommendation, Paragraph 52)

Fragmented responsibilities and siloed decision-making continue to undermine coherent marine management. Confusion over the North Sea Future Plan and conflicting policy signals experienced by fishers demonstrate that existing coordination structures are not delivering consistent cross-government direction. Although mechanisms such as 31 the MSPri Board exist, they do not provide the strategic, ministerial level leadership required to align marine, fisheries, conservation and energy priorities across government. (Conclusion, Paragraph 55)

To ensure coherent cross-government leadership of the proposed Sea Use Framework by the end of 2026, the government should establish a ministerial board, to oversee the coordination of government policy on the use of UK waters. This ministerial board would complement or absorb, rather than replace, the existing MSPri Board by focusing specifically on the strategic coordination and delivery of the proposed Sea Use Framework. This “Sea Use Coordination Board” would provide the strategic direction necessary to align departmental objectives relating to marine planning, fisheries, conservation, energy and coastal communities. The Board should: • oversee and steer the development of the Sea Use Framework, ensuring it is genuinely cross-government and integrates environmental, fisheries, energy and spatial planning needs; • meet quarterly, with minutes and attendance lists published within two months of each meeting; • ensure structured engagement across all relevant Defra family bodies and agencies, including Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Natural England, the MMO, Cefas, and Defra’s fisheries, conservation and marine management teams, with a requirement to demonstrate collaborative input into the development of the Framework; and • produce, by April 2027, a public progress report on the Sea Use Framework, setting out how departments and delivery bodies have contributed to shared priorities and how conflicting objectives have been addressed. (Recommendation, Paragraph 56) 32