08/09/2026
This has cost me tens of thousands of pounds.
I’ve spent a huge amount bringing a 22-year-old fishing vessel up to standards that at times feel closer to new-build requirements, only to feel like the goalposts keep moving.
Nobody in fishing is against genuine safety improvements. We all want to come home safely. But regulation has to be practical, consistent and achievable for existing vessels.
One of the biggest problems is consistency. Different officials can interpret requirements differently, leaving fishermen unsure exactly what standard they’re expected to meet. You can be told to alter something at considerable expense, then pay again for it to be inspected.
Then there are the delays. If an alteration requires MCA approval or inspection, fishermen shouldn’t be left waiting weeks for somebody to attend while the vessel is tied alongside earning nothing. Downtime is a cost just as surely as the repair itself.
All of this is falling on individual owners alongside increasing paperwork, fuel, engineering, equipment and general operating costs. Unlike many businesses, we can’t simply add those increases onto the price of the fish we land.
There also needs to be recognition that retrofitting a working vessel built more than 20 years ago is fundamentally different from designing a new vessel from scratch. Some modern requirements are extremely difficult and disproportionately expensive to incorporate retrospectively.
Safety regulation should make fishermen safer. It shouldn’t create such financial and mental pressure that owners are pushed to breaking point trying to keep their vessels compliant and their businesses alive.
We need one clear interpretation of the rules, realistic standards for existing vessels, sensible transition periods, and enough MCA inspectors so vessels aren’t unnecessarily tied up waiting.
Fishermen aren’t asking to avoid safety rules. We’re asking for a fair, consistent and workable system.
