Consultation outcome

Government response: removing the licence cap on 10 metre and under vessels

Updated 16 December 2024

Introduction

Just over a fifth of English registered 10 metre and under (u10m) vessels are subject to a limit, or cap, of 350kg on the amount of finfish quota species they can fish per annum. Defra introduced the cap on licences to help manage the utilisation of quota available to the u10m fleet.

In recent years, targeted initiatives to improve quota availability for the u10m fleet have led to a significant increase in the u10m quota pool, but the uptake has been relatively low with large amounts of some stocks remaining unfished.

Industry cited the licence cap as a barrier for fishers wanting to catch quota stocks over the 350kg per annum limit. Some capped licence holders said that lifting the cap permanently would give the certainty needed to invest in new gear, enabling them to catch more or different quota stocks.

We want fishers to have the opportunity to fish the quota allocated for their use. In response to requests from industry, the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) has temporarily lifted the cap in each of the last 5 years without issue. This was last done in May with the cap being lifted for the remainder of 2024.

In 2023 Defra consulted on permanently lifting the 350kg licence capping condition for under u10m vessels.

The policy applies to English registered vessels only. The Devolved Administrations do not have a similar capping arrangement in place for their u10m fleets.

Overview of responses

Defra ran a 6 week consultation on lifting the licence cap permanently from 17 July to 30 August 2023. Read the consultation document for detailed background and context on the proposal . The consultation was conducted using Citizen Space (a UK government online consultation tool) and accompanied by stakeholder engagement in the form of face-to-face meetings with stakeholders at local ports in England and responses by email.

A total of 34 responses were received, 30 via Citizen Space and 4 via email. Informal responses were also received verbally at face-to-face coastal meetings held during the consultation period. The verbal responses were noted down but not attributed to any individual or organisation. Therefore, these responses cannot be quantified in the same way as the written responses to the consultation. We have considered all responses and taken them into account in our government response.

Responses were received from a range of individuals and organisations. These have been grouped into 10 broad categories:

• Arms length bodies – 2 responses
• Environmental non-governmental organisation (NGO) – 1 response
• Fishing companies – 2 responses
• Fishing organisation – 1 response
• Fishing trade bodies – 2 responses
• Individuals – 18 responses
• Producer Organisations – 2 responses
• Recreational fishing association – 3 responses
• Recreational fishing organisation – 1 response
• Unspecified organisations – 2 responses

Annex 1 includes a list of the organisations that responded to the consultation. The names of individuals who responded have not been included.

Methodology

The consultation had quantitative and qualitive questions: Question 1 used a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ approach, with stakeholders asked to provide detail in Question 2 about the reason behind their response at Question 1; Questions 3 and 4 were qualitative questions that gave respondents the opportunity to provide additional comments on the policy proposal.

The ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses have been quantified. Due to the qualitative nature of the comments a thematic analysis was conducted. Each response was analysed twice to identify both the themes raised by respondents and policy recommendations put forward. The responses to each question were summarised to produce the overall summary of responses.

Comments on the consultation during in-person and online meetings were noted. These notes were cross-checked and analysed using the same iterative process as that set out in the paragraph above. Views from these engagement events have been included in the summary below and considered equally alongside the email and online responses.

Summary of responses

Question 1: Do you agree with the proposed removal of the licence cap from English u10m fleet vessels?

Response	Number of respondents
For	22
Against	11
Neutral	1

All of the 34 respondents replied to this question, with 22 respondents (65%) agreeing with the proposal to permanently lift the cap. One respondent specified a preference for continuing to lift the cap temporarily, with the remaining 11 (32%) opposed to the policy proposal.

Stakeholders who commented during coastal visits were generally in favour of the proposal.

Question 2: What is the reason for your answer to Question 1?

Of the 22 (65%) responses in favour of permanently removing the cap, the main reasons given were that it would:

• allow licence holders to diversify between quota and non-quota stocks (NQS)
• ease pressure on NQS
• remove a barrier to entry into the fishing industry for new entrants
• provide fishers with the certainty they need to invest in new gear
• reduce discarded fish
• create a level playing field for English vessels as the cap does not apply to Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish registered vessels;
• increase compliance with the landing obligation
• restore the position of having one licence category for all u10m vessels

Of the 11 (22%) responses against permanently removing the cap, the main reasons given were that it would:

• cause quota to run out earlier in the year
• reduce the financial value of existing uncapped licences
• increase pressure on quota stocks
• contradict scientific advice
• impact negatively on recreational fishers targeting the same stocks
• prevent quota from being reallocated to the over 10m (o10m) fleet (both sector and non-sector)
• increase displacement and targeting of NQS
• not be used by the u10m fleet which has so far failed to demonstrate their need for the quota
• undermine the original policy aim of introducing the cap which was to give certainty to u10m fishers actively targeting quota species
• disrupt fishing patterns if more vessels opted to fish
• enable vessels to catch more without being subject to the same level of regulation or control as the o10m fleet

One respondent also proposed that the cap be increased from 350kg to 750kg.

Another respondent said more evidence was needed to evaluate the proposal’s impact, recommending that for now the temporary arrangement should continue.

Responses from stakeholders at coastal visits were generally in favour of the proposal, citing benefits including:

• allowing fishers to diversify into quota stocks easing pressure on NQS, especially shellfish
• providing more certainty around investing in new fishing gear

Some stakeholders asked for more detail on the evidence base that was used and how the policy would be reviewed. Questions were asked about whether the proposal would enable an u10m licence to be merged with another licence enabling a bigger or more powerful vessel to enter the fleet.

Question 3: What impact do you think removing the licence cap will have?

Response	Number of respondents
Positive	11
Negative	11
None	9
Unclear or no response	3

Views on the impact of lifting the cap by respondents to the consultation, were split evenly between positive (32%) and negative (32%) while just under a third (27%) were unclear or gave no response.

The 11 respondents who said lifting the cap would have a positive impact gave the following reasons:

• enable greater flexibility to fish both quota and NQS
• help new entrants by removing a barrier to entry into the industry
• increase the value of licences that are currently capped
• reduce discards and improve quota uptake in the u10m quota pool
• make more fish available for sale in local communities
• give fishers more certainty to invest in new gear

Of the 11 respondents who felt the impact would be negative, the main reason given was the effect of increased fishing activity on stocks. Commercial fishers felt that their earnings might drop if there was less quota available to catch or if prices fell as greater volumes of quota reached the market.

Two respondents felt it would be unfair for fishers who had fished quota in the pool to face increased competition for catch. Five responses from recreational anglers also highlighted concerns about potential increases in commercial catches of fish stocks which could threaten sustainability.

Three respondents felt that lifting the cap could damage the profitability of active uncapped u10m licence holders and cause the value of uncapped licences to reduce.

Nine respondents said that lifting the cap would have no or limited impact. Of these, 3 said this had already been demonstrated by the minimal increase in quota uptake during the 4 years the cap had been lifted temporarily.

Those stakeholders who expressed support for the permanent removal of the cap at face-to-face coastal meetings held during the consultation period did not provide any additional information on the likely impact of the cap being lifted.

Stakeholders at the coastal meetings who felt the impact could be negative explained that it could be because of:

• changes to fishing patterns increasing pressure on fish stocks
• increased pressure on shellfish stocks

Question 4 – Is there anything else you would like to share in relation to the proposed removal of the licence cap?

24 (71%) out of 34 respondents provided additional comments on the removal of the licence cap. Many of the points raised reflected those made in response to the earlier questions, such as:

• no assessment of the costs and benefits of lifting the cap
• the policy should be reviewed and evaluated
• the u10m pool has too much quota and it is underfished significantly every year.
• the distribution and allocation of quota between the u10m and the o10m fleets should be reviewed
• rules are needed to prevent vessel owners combining u10m licences to put them onto bigger or more powerful vessels (for instance, consolidation)
• the policy must be consistent with the Fisheries Act 2020 and fisheries management plans (FMPs)

Additional points raised from the stakeholder engagement at coastal visits were in respect of the analysis and evidence base used to inform the decision to lift the cap, and on the frequency of any review on capping policy. Concerns were also expressed about the contingency arrangements if the permanent lifting of the cap led to significant pressure on quota stocks.

Government response

This response was delayed because of the time needed to consider the responses, the general election and other priorities.

Defra’s response to the points raised during the consultation period is set out below together with our conclusion on the policy and next steps. As many of the points made were linked to common themes we have collated them under several key headings.

Quota and sustainability issues

Concerns were expressed about more vessels fishing for quota stocks, especially those in highest demand, which could cause the pool limit to be reached earlier in the year. There is potential for vessels fishing for quota stocks in the pool to be affected by an increase in fishing activity through increased competition. There may also be higher levels of fishing in concentrated areas as fishing patterns change.

MMO will continue to assess the uptake of quota throughout the year as part of its routine management. It takes this assessment into account when setting the u10m pool monthly catch limits enabling them to be flexed up or down. Quota limits are based on demand to ensure that they are not going to be exceeded or fished too early in the year.

The u10m fleet is still constrained by how much it can catch by factors like weather, capacity of vessels and distance. Not all u10m fishermen will want to switch metier.

Questions were raised about the quota allocation policy in England; whether the u10m fleet has more quota than it needs and how quota is allocated between o10m and u10m vessels. In the previous government’s response to Defra’s 2022 consultation on Managing Quota in 2023 and Beyond, we committed to review underpinning arrangements for the allocation of quota to different parts of the fleet and this work is ongoing. However, we want to remove potential barriers to the u10m fleet to fishing their allocation.

It was suggested that lifting the cap may divert fishing from Non-Quota Species (NQS) to quota stocks which could benefit some NQS especially those under pressure. Greater diversification is considered to be a positive thing.

There were concerns that lifting the cap could cause an increase in bass fishing although it is not a quota stock and is managed separately.

Views on discards were mixed. Some respondents believed discarding could reduce while others felt it could rise with an increase in fishing. It should be noted that discards are prohibited. A consultation on discards reform was held in summer 2023 and the response from the previous government was published on 13 May 2024.

Recreational anglers also expressed concerns about the sustainability of fish stocks resulting from the lifting of the cap, particularly where it could impact on recreational anglers targeting the same species. We are committed to preserving and improving stock sustainability and the amount caught will be limited by quotas.

Licensing issues

Some respondents said that lifting the cap could cause a reduction in the value of an uncapped licence. Licences are currently issued by the MMO free of charge. We acknowledge that there is an informal trade in licences, where uncapped licences have a greater value than their capped equivalents. However, that is the unintended consequence of industry behaviour. Prices for licences are also affected by a range of issues. It is thought the impact will be low, given the relatively small number of licences affected.

There was concern that lifting the cap could incentivise vessel owners to bring bigger, more powerful vessels into the fleet by combining 2 or more licences (known as consolidation). These vessels could land significantly higher volumes of quota, putting pressure on the sustainability of the stock and impacting the economic viability of existing u10m vessels targeting quota.

MMO rules state that an u10m vessel licence cannot be amalgamated with an over 10 metre vessel licence and an under 8 metre licence cannot be amalgamated with an 8 to 10 metre licence. This restricts the maximum tonnage and power of individual vessels operating in the u10m pool.

Some responses from recreational anglers asked what lifting the cap permanently could mean for uncapped licence holders, in particular:

• the ability to obtain a bass entitlement
• the ability to buy extra kilowatts (engine power) for their vessels
• whether there would be a charge for making a licence uncapped

The proposals would not affect whether a capped licence holder could acquire a bass entitlement as this is subject to separate management arrangements and not a policy consideration for this consultation.

A capped licence holder could buy extra kilowatts for their vessel, but it is not linked to whether their licence is capped. The size of vessels is restricted by vessel length and engine power. 

MMO does not currently charge for licences therefore there would be no charge to remove the cap from a licence.

Defra considered the impact on current uncapped English u10m licence values although it is difficult to quantify. Buying and selling licences are commercial decisions. MMO does not hold information on licence prices. Removing the cap will not alter the activities that can be taken by holders of uncapped licences.

Quantify the policy costs and benefits

Some respondents queried the statistics and evidence base used to inform the policy proposal to lift the licence cap permanently. The recreational angling sector in particular raised concerns about the social, economic, and environmental impact of lifting the cap.

We did not undertake a formal assessment of the impacts of this policy proposal on the recreational angling sector. Data on catches of quota species and NQS stocks by the recreational sector is limited. However, the anticipated impact on fish stocks and the sustainability of these stocks was considered. This is based on statistical information produced by the MMO which is informed by industry catch data.

Government remains committed to using the best available scientific evidence to underpin its policy decisions. Increasing familiarity with use of the u10m catch app enables MMO to receive real time data from vessels so more timely decisions can be made. MMO will continue to monitor quota uptake regularly, using monthly catch limits to manage the u10m quota pool.

If more management measures are required in the longer term, due to increased pressure on fish stocks, we will consider what remedial actions may be required. fisheries management plans (FMPs) provide a new framework for restoring or maintaining stocks at sustainable levels.

Some consultees felt more evidence was required before a decision could be made on lifting the cap permanently. MMO has assessed data from the periods the cap has been lifted temporarily since 2020 and will continue to do so.

Table 1 shows that in 2019 the initial quota tonnage allocated to the u10m pool was 7,040 tonnes with 70% of the quota fished, whereas in 2023 the quota allocation had increased to 12,800 tonnes with uptake of 24%. This highlights how the volume of quota allocated to the pool has significantly increased in recent years, but that the overall volume fished in the pool has fallen from 4,910 tonnes in 2019 to 3,100 tonnes in 2023.

The reason for these changes is unclear and likely to be multi-causal, for example, lack of fish on the ground, fishers leaving the industry and uncertainty about the future dampening investment in new vessels and gear.

Table 1: Quota in the u10m pool and quota uptake

Year	Quota in the u10m pool (tonnes)	Quota uptake live weight (tonnes)	percentage of quota uptake
2019	7,040	4,910	70%
2020	5,590	3,600	64%
2021	11,370	3,930	35%
2022	11,480	3,710	32%
2023	12,800	3,100	24%

Table data from MMO.

Table 2 shows that although only a small number of vessels with capped licences have fished above the cap since it was first lifted temporarily in 2020, the total volume caught has significantly risen year-on-year from 4 tonnes to 22.9 tonnes.

Table 2: Fishing activity by capped licence holders

Year	Number of vessels with capped licences	Number of vessels with capped licences catching quota species	Number of vessels with capped licences catching over 350kg of quota species	Total number of quota species caught by vessels with capped licences (tonnes)
2020	540	100	3	4
2021	505	102	7	4.7
2022	455	107	12	11
2023	427	108	17	22.9

Table data from MMO.

These tables show that while the volume of quota in the u10m pool has doubled from 2020 to 2022, uptake has not increased despite the cap being lifted at various times since 2020. This may be because vessel owners do not wish to change their fishing patterns or choose not to do so because of ongoing uncertainty about future policy.

We believe it is reasonable to lift the cap while MMO continues to undertake regular monitoring.

Consideration of other policy options

Most respondents supported the cap being lifted permanently, however the negative impacts of the policy raised in response to Question 2 led us to consider whether any alternative approach would better reflect the consultation feedback. As a result, Defra considered the following options:

• Option 1: lift the cap permanently
• Option 2: retain the cap but lift it temporarily on a rolling two-year basis subject to MMO checks
• Option 3: retain the cap but increase the limit to 750kg
• Option 4: retain the cap at 350kg

Option 1 has been consulted on and is covered in this response document.

Option 2 would allow capped licence holders to fish more than 350kgs. Towards the end of each 2-year period MMO would assess quota utilisation and confirm whether the cap could be lifted for another 2-year period.

Option 2 strikes a balance between lifting the cap permanently and not lifting it at all. It is more precautionary than the policy proposal as the cap can be reinstated if there is increased pressure on a stock; yet it gives fishers some confidence that they could fish over 350kg for 2 years at least.

However, it is unlikely to give the level of certainty fishers want or need to invest in new gear or change their fishing patterns reducing the opportunity for fishers to fish more quota. Plus, MMO will still be able to impose monthly catch limits whatever the policy outcome. We do not believe the benefits of this option are strong enough to merit it being introduced.

Option 3 to increase the cap limit from 350kg to 750kg per annum was suggested in a consultation response. Increasing the cap limit to 750kg would maintain the protections associated with the cap, while giving fishers certainty that they could fish a higher amount (albeit the amount would be capped).

There was no rationale provided in the consultation response suggesting this.

Overall, we are not convinced that the advantages of introducing a higher cap would be significantly better than maintaining the current cap or would be more likely to meet the intended policy objective. It is unlikely to meet the requirements of those capped vessels that have been fishing above the cap when it has been lifted temporarily. Table 2 shows that in 2023, 17 vessels with capped licences fished 22.9 tonnes of quota stocks.

Option 4 is the status quo. It does not meet the policy objective of increasing quota uptake by the u10m fleet.

Consultation outcome

Considering the views received in response to the consultation against the policy objective of improving access to fish a greater volume of quota, we conclude that it is appropriate to lift the u10m vessel licence cap permanently. MMO will continue to manage the u10m quota pool actively during the year.

Prior to the consultation, informal feedback from capped licence holders said they needed to invest in better gear or in new vessels to fish more quota. Prior to the consultation, informal feedback from capped licence holders said they needed to invest in better gear, or in new vessels, in order to fish more quota stocks. This is reflected in what we have seen since the cap has been lifted temporarily at various times since 2020, when most capped licence owners chose to continue fishing below the cap. The temporary arrangements do not provide a sufficient incentive for vessel owners to alter their fishing plans.

This policy decision is consistent with our aim to support the u10m fleet by removing a barrier which could limit their ability to fish the quota available in the u10m pool, whilst balancing consideration of environmental issues. The impact on uncapped licence holders and the recreational sector have also been considered. It is in line with the sustainability and precautionary objectives in the Fisheries Act 2020 and principles of the Joint Fisheries Statement. The policy is consistent with the Public Sector Equality Duty as is not expected to impact on persons with a relevant protected characteristic, and it is compliant with the environmental principles policy statement.

How the policy will be reviewed

MMO will continue to assess the uptake of quota within the u10m pool on an ongoing basis and impose catch limits on u10m licence holders if required.

Annex 1 – List of organisations that formally responded to the consultation

Below is a list of the organisations that responded to the consultation. Individuals also responded but Defra does not publish individuals’ names for data protection purposes. However, their views have still informed the analysis of this consultation and are incorporated in the figures presented throughout. These organisations responded on behalf of their members, and we record each submission as one response.

• Angling Trust
• Bass Angling Conservation Limited
• Bass Anglers Sportfishing Society
• Cornish Fish Producers Organisation (CFPO)
• CS Shipping Limited
• ITF
• Leach Fishing
• Marine Management Organisation (MMO)
• The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisation (NFFO)
• Northumberland Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority (IFCA)
• Plymouth Fishing & Seafood Association
• Seal Research Trust
• South Coast Angling Club
• South Devon & Channel Shellfishermen Limited
• TTT
• United Kingdom Association of Fish Producers Organisation (UKAFPO)