The £360M Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund: Devolution, Disputes, and the Future of UK Fisheries

The UK Government announced the £360 million Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund (FCGF) to support the fishing and seafood sectors, focusing on sustainability, profitability, and coastal regeneration over the next 12 years. The fund is designed to invest in new technology, skills, and promotion of seafood exports. Following stakeholder requests, the funding was devolved in October, granting devolved Governments full discretion over its allocation based on specific regional needs. However, the allocation method, using the Barnett formula, has led to widespread "anger and dismay" from representatives in Scotland and Wales, who argue that their small share does not reflect their huge contribution to the UK's overall catch and fishing capacity. 

Key Takeaways

• The FCGF is a £360 million investment intended to modernise UK fishing fleets, build resilience, and support the next generation of fishers.
• The funding was confirmed as devolved on 20 October, allowing devolved Governments to design and deliver support tailored to the unique needs of their coastal communities.
• The allocation mechanism, the Barnett formula, has been highly controversial, with critics noting that Scotland received only around 8% of the fund despite landing nearly 50% of the catch.
• The government is currently in the co-design phase with stakeholders and local communities to determine how investment will be targeted, including supporting new entrants and modernising infrastructure.
• Opposing parties view the fund as a mere "sticking plaster" or "weak apology" following a long-term EU deal that critics claim has betrayed the fishing industry.

Discussion 

Given that the fund aims for local impact and resilience, should the allocation method for the FCGF be based strictly on existing constitutional formulas (like the Barnett formula), or should it prioritize geographical factors, such as the volume/value of fish landed and local economic deprivation, to ensure fairness across the industry?

Source: Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund
Volume 773: debated on Thursday 23 October 2025

Transcript

Amy: 0:03

Hello, and welcome again to the Bench Report, where we discuss recent debates and briefings from the benches of the UK Parliament. A new topic every episode. You're listening to Amy and Ivan.

Ivan: 0:14

And today we're looking into that new $360 million fishing and coastal growth fund. It popped up in Parliament after an urgent question. And, well, the debate wasn't really about if investment is needed.

Amy: 0:26

No, it seems everyone agrees on the need. The real heat, it seems, is around how this money is actually being distributed.

Ivan: 0:32

Exactly. So let's start with the basics. The fund itself, announced back in May, it's a pretty hefty $360 million planned over 12 years.

Amy: 0:41

And the goals sound straightforward enough, right? Things like modernizing the fishing fleets, getting new tech in there.

Ivan: 0:46

Yes, that, and also investing in training, bringing in the next generation of fishers, and trying to boost the UK seafood sector globally for exports. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

Amy: 0:55

Okay, so standard stuff. But then there was this shift in policy, wasn't there? Something about central control versus local control.

Ivan: 1:00

That's right. Initially, there was criticism about previous schemes being too top-down, too centrally managed. So the government confirmed, I think it was October 20th, that this fund would be devolved.

Amy: 1:13

Meaning Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland get to decide how to spend their share.

Ivan: 1:18

Precisely. Full discretion for the devolved governments on allocating the support locally. It sounds like a win for regional autonomy, learning from past issues.

Amy: 1:26

But and there's always a but in these things. The way the money is divided up between them, that's where the controversy flares up.

Ivan: 1:33

That's the core of it. They're using the Barnett formula, the standard mechanism, although with a slight 20% uplift.

Amy: 1:39

Right, the Barnett formula, usually based on population shares, isn't it?

Ivan: 1:42

It is. And that's the problem highlighted by MPs across the board. Fishing capacity, you see, isn't spread out according to population numbers. Not at all.

Amy: 1:50

Give us the figures. Scotland seems particularly affected here.

Ivan: 1:54

Hugely. Scotland has something like 50% of the UK's fishing capacity, lands nearly half the catch value, but gets just under 8% of this fund. About 28 million over 12 years.

Amy: 2:04

Wow. And Wales gets around 18 million, Northern Ireland 10 million?

Ivan: 2:08

That's about right. So you can see why there's dismay. If the goal is upgrading suites and supporting fishing communities where the activity is, the formula seems, well, misaligned.

Amy: 2:19

How did the minister defend this, sticking to the rules?

Ivan: 2:22

Essentially, yes. The argument was that the Barnet formula is the established constitutional way to devolve funds. Plus, it was pointed out that Scotland received a separate, quite large, $8.5 billion uplift in the overall spending review, the CSR.

Amy: 2:38

The comprehensive spending review. So the argument is they could use some of that general funding for fishing if they chose to.

Ivan: 2:43

That was the implication offered, yes, that the devolved governments have other pots of money they can draw on.

Amy: 2:49

But politically, this didn't smooth things over much, did it? We heard terms like sticking plaster, sweetener.

Ivan: 2:55

Across the political spectrum, too, conservative, SNP, Lib Dem, MPs. Many framed it as a kind of compensation after what they termed the disastrous EU fishing deal that spanned 12 years. It carries that political baggage.

Amy: 3:07

So if people are skeptical, what do they want done with the money instead? Assuming it gets allocated this way.

Ivan: 3:14

Well, there's a strong push to make sure it doesn't just end up with the uh the wealthy quota barons, as they were called.

Amy: 3:20

Meaning the big companies holding most of the fishing rights.

Ivan: 3:23

Exactly. The focus, stakeholders say, should be on supporting new people entering the industry, younger fishers, smaller local operations.

Amy: 3:32

Any concrete ideas? I remember one suggestion about local councils buying quota.

Ivan: 3:37

Yes, a labor MP suggested local authorities could potentially buy up quota and lease it out, perhaps to help new entrants or smaller boats get established. A challenge to the current concentration of ownership.

Amy: 3:49

And specific regional plans, Cornwall came up, I think.

Ivan: 3:52

They did. The Cornish fleet put forward quite a detailed proposal. They argued strongly for frontloading the funds, getting more money out earlier, rather than thinly spread over the whole 12 years.

Amy: 4:02

Makes sense if you need urgent upgrades. What else?

Ivan: 4:05

They also pushed for investment in infrastructure, like ports, and in science and research. It's about building long-term resilience, not just patching things up temporarily.

Amy: 4:15

And just to be clear, the minister did specify the funds limits, right? It's strictly for fishing.

Ivan: 4:20

Correct. It's for modernizing fleets, improving resilience within the fishing sector, not for tackling, say, general water quality issues or wider community mental health support, even if those are coastal issues, too. This is ring-fenced for fishing.

Amy: 4:34

So looking at the whole debate, it really throws a spotlight on this tension, doesn't it, between having a standard national formula for funding and the actual economic reality on the ground in specific regions?

Ivan: 4:45

Absolutely. It's that classic dilemma. Does the government stick rigidly to the administrative tidiness of the Barnet formula, even if it means the policy might be less effective where it's most needed?

Amy: 4:57

Or should the funding mechanism adapt more flexibly to the specific industrial landscape, in this case, the fishing capacity?

Ivan: 5:03

That's the crux of it. A real point of friction in how the UK operates with devolved powers.

Amy: 5:09

A question for you, the listener, perhaps. Does the benefit of having devolved control over the spending outweigh the potentially smaller pot of money that devolution formula brings?

Ivan: 5:20

It's a key question with no easy answer.

Amy: 5:22

As always, find us on social media at bench report UK. Get in touch with any topic important to you.

Ivan: 5:27

Remember, politics is everyone's business.

Amy: 5:30

Take care.