Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Forgive me for being hoarse — I have been drinking water to try to help my voice. I welcome John Terrington, principal officer; Kenny Parker, deputy principal; Paddy Campbell, deputy principal; and Mark McCaughan, Chief Fisheries Officer. I ask you to give a briefing of up to 10 minutes, and then the Committee will ask questions.

Mr John Terrington (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): Good afternoon, and thank you for this opportunity. As you said, Chairman, Mark is our Chief Fisheries Officer. Kenny and Paddy represent aquaculture policy and sea fisheries policy respectively, and I am from the Bill team.

Sea fishing for the main commercially exploited species is regulated through the common fisheries policy (CFP) and covers, for example, quotas and access regulations. The CFP is implemented and enforced here through subordinate legislation powers set out in Acts that generally apply across the UK. The main Act is the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967, which has been updated on a number of occasions, although the most recent update in 2009 applied only to Britain, not here. One aim of the proposals that we are here to discuss is to align with some of those changes, given the joint enforcement that we undertake across the Irish Sea. The 1967 Act regulates the commercial use of fishing for, and landing of, sea fish and includes powers to regulate gear, nets and the licensing of fishing boats. It gives fisheries officers here and in Britain the power to enforce relevant EU regulations under the common fisheries policy.

While the EU regulates most sea fishing activities, the 1966 Fisheries Act regulates fish farming and sea fishing in the inshore area, or the area adjacent to the coast. The 1966 Act authorises the Department to make regulations for the management, conservation, protection and improvement of fisheries in our coastal waters. These powers can also be exercised for the conservation and enhancement of the environment. The 1966 Act also covers the licensing of aquaculture, making it an offence to cultivate fish or shellfish without a licence, and provides legislative protection for the licence operations. The legislation also sets out a process for consulting on licence applications and provides the Department with powers to grant licences subject to licence condition. The 1966 Act also covers inland fishing and salmon fishing, both currently the responsibility of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL), and that Department is bringing forward separate changes at the same time as the changes that we are discussing today.

A wide variety of commercially important fish species is exploited in our local waters. The licensed sea fishing sector is primarily concentrated at three east coast fishing ports in County Down, where it supports employment in the catching and processing industries as well as ancillary industries. In 2013, the fleet comprised 145 licensed and registered vessels of over 10 m in length and 234 registered vessels of under 10 m in length, many of which operate from harbours away from the three main ports. Most of the fleet fish in the Irish Sea, and the most important fish for them are Dublin Bay prawns, followed by scallops and then herring.

In aquaculture, 79 fish farms on 90 sites, both marine and land based, cultivate fish. Seventy-five per cent of the cultivation is shellfish, and 33 farms cultivate fin fish. Current species include Atlantic salmon, brown trout, rainbow trout, mussels and Pacific oysters. The sector directly employs around 77 full-time and 46 part-time employees. In addition to commercial sea fishing, there is an active sea angling sector. Our waters are extremely diverse, offering a wide range of fishing opportunities for recreational sea angling. However, the number of people who participate in sea angling is unknown as, unlike freshwater angling, no permit is required and no records are kept. While sea angling occurs throughout the year, activity peaks in the summer months, and the most common type of sea angling is shore-based. The sea fishing regulatory framework that we have in place is generally associated with boat-based commercial fishing and not sea angling per se.

The sea fishing sector has a long tradition here and has proven to be resilient in the face of challenge. However, a critical issue is the uncertainty of the supply of fish and other seafood. Stocks may be renewable, but they are finite, and there is a risk of overfishing. Without regulation of some sort, open access can result in overfishing. Individuals may not take account of the effect of their activity on the ability of others to catch fish, and that can have a detrimental effect on fish stocks for the future.

The nature of sea fishing, and the difficulty in regulating much of the activity as it takes place, means that there is a requirement for a lot of regulatory and enforcement activity in order to deter wrongdoing. Robust legislation is required to ensure the protection of vulnerable fish stocks. The industry is generally keen on the retention of such strong enforcement powers as the only way to ensure that law-abiding fishermen and businesses can compete and that the sustainability of stocks is ensured.

As a result of changes in the offshore industry over the past decade, inshore fisheries have doubled in size and become much more prominent and valuable to fishing communities — mainly the smaller boats that I referred to earlier. Some important nature conservation areas carry important designations as well. As most inshore waters are in or near designated habitats, there is a need for adequate and strong legislation to protect these important designations.

We briefed the Committee last year on outline proposals for amendments to both of the Acts that I referred to earlier, the 1966 Act and the 1967 Act. The proposals seek to allow DARD to directly meet its EU obligations and commitments, and they aim to ensure that we continue to provide adequate and proportionate protection for marine aquatic environments. The proposals would also amend the 1966 Act in relation to DCAL powers in order to introduce a fixed penalty system for angling offences and to make a number of other changes, mainly in relation to improving the passage of fish.

A 12-week consultation began in August, and notification was sent to more than 1,800 individuals and organisations. Officials met aquaculture representatives and the fisheries task force. Meetings were also held with Ulster Wildlife and the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside. In the end, 57 responses were received, covering a range of interests, although many concentrated mainly or exclusively on DCAL interests. You have been provided with a summary and analysis of the responses, along with a departmental draft response to the comments. Hopefully, those demonstrate that there is broad support for the majority of what DARD has proposed. An exception is the increase in the level of penalties for sea fisheries, with some respondents arguing that the penalties were too steep. However, most suggested that they were insufficient.

The key issue for the aquaculture industry is that the proposals did not go far enough to deal with the complexity involved in aquaculture licensing. That is not a unique issue to here and, to a large part, is outside the scope of the Fisheries Bill. However, we are, along with other relevant Departments and agencies, looking at the administrative processes involved, and that will likely include opportunities provided to us as a result of the departmental restructuring proposed in the Stormont House Agreement.

Given the general support from stakeholders, the proposed Fisheries Bill will broadly follow the DARD consultation proposals. The final policy was agreed by the Executive on 26 March and is included in your papers. At this point, if it is the Committee's wish, I am happy to briefly outline the proposals, but they are detailed in your papers. I will go through them in two minutes, if you are happy enough.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK.

Mr Terrington: The Bill will modernise, update and consolidate DARD enforcement powers. It will seek to improve the regulatory process and ensure adequate protection of marine environments by allowing amendments to sea fishery licences so that licence conditions can relate specifically to the marine environment and allow for the permitting of inshore fishing activities. Through a technical amendment, it will also allow for the direct enforcement of all relevant EU legislation. The Bill would increase the deterrent from wrongdoing by increasing maximum penalties available to the courts and introduce a system of fixed administrative penalties for inshore offences. The proposals would modernise the aquaculture licence system, replacing the two licences currently needed for marine fish farming with a new single aquaculture licence, and they would extend powers to cover aquatic organisms such as seaweed. New powers would regularise current administrative processes such as the transfer and surrender of licences and allow for charging for licence applications in the future.

The proposals also include an extension of the power to revoke a fish farm as a result of not maintaining a range of related consents, not developing the site or for other public good, all of which would remain subject to an existing appeals mechanism. As noted, the proposals include changes to the 1966 Act with respect to inland fisheries powers, for which DCAL is currently responsible. DCAL officials have already engaged with the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee on its final proposals and the outcome of the consultation. While they will be happy to answer any queries members have on the powers, no one was available to join us today. We are, of course, happy to take back any queries on your behalf.

Following Executive approval, we are now formally engaged with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and hope that the Bill will be introduced in the Assembly before the summer recess, with formal scrutiny by the Committee thereafter. However, we recognise the competing pressures on the OLC, including those as a result of priority legislation emanating from the Stormont House Agreement, which could impact on the OLC resources available to take forward the Bill. We remain hopeful of progress and are happy to take any questions or comments you might have.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK. Thank you for your presentation.

May I take you to the proposal to change the maximum penalties in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967? The consultation document states that the maximum penalty on summary conviction is £5,000 for a range of offences. You intend to raise that to £50,000 and the maximum penalty for the obstruction of an officer to £20,000. That is a tenfold increase. What is the justification for that?

Mr Terrington: A number of proposals increase the statutory maximum from £5,000 to £50,000, including that particular offence. They are in line with the penalties that have been brought forward in the 1967 Sea Fish (Conservation) Act, which applies across these waters, and would afford our fisheries officers the same protection as that afforded to those whom they work alongside, for example, on joint patrols. That is the aim.

Mark can give you examples of when there have been issues at sea, but they are rare occurrences. It is important to provide that deterrent from abusing, or otherwise, officers who are doing their duty and make sure that, for those who do, the penalty fits the crime.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): In the last year, has anyone been fined £5,000?

Mr Mark McCaughan (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): It is not for the Department to level the fines; it is for the courts.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Yes, but has anyone been fined that amount?

Mr McCaughan: It would be unusual for us to get a fine as high as that, because there are usually good mitigation arguments deployed in court. In relation to the scale of the increase, I would not want Northern Ireland to become the soft touch of western waters. Some fisheries offences carry enormous reward. In my day, I have seen a catch with a value of £37,000 being seized for an offence. So, against that backdrop, a fine of £5,000 is incongruous.

In addition, we are not necessarily dealing with people from Northern Ireland: we could be dealing with people from France, Belgium or elsewhere. Some of this enforcement is difficult: officers are out there on their own at sea, probably being confronted by many more people than they can put on to a vessel. So, the £20,000 penalty for obstructing an officer is a necessity in this day and age. Anyway, I will leave it with the Committee. It seems to me to be a case of strengthening the penalty rather than the other way round.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): You know that the Committee had major difficulties with the last Bill that came before us, because we did not feel that the Department had proven the need for it. What can you say to allay the fear of that happening with this Bill? Where is the need for it?

Mr Terrington: As Mark pointed out, it is important that we are not seen to be a soft touch. The majority of the sea fishing powers simply align with powers that officers in the rest of these waters have. The new enforcement powers in particular provide a range of clarifications and seek to provide continuity, whereby we would have exactly the same powers across these waters.

Some of the powers seek to reduce bureaucracy, and I will draw attention to a couple of them. One would allow the Department to sell seized fish at the point of seizure, rather than freezing them. At the end of a court case, the full value rather than the frozen value could be returned.

There are a number of things that we seek to align, and providing the complete set of tools necessary to enforce may improve the situation for fishermen as well.

Mr Byrne: What is the outcome that we hope for in the management and compliance required from fish farm managers? The bigger problem is the fish farms. How much of a benefit will the Bill bring to that situation?

Mr Terrington: As we have said, in the grand scheme of things, this is a relatively small industry involving a limited number of people. The legislation was written in 1966, and bits have been tagged on to it a few times. The main issue of developing a single licence rather than a two-part licence should reduce, in some way, the red tape involved. A number of issues with transfer are perhaps unclear, or we have managed them administratively, and giving them a proper legislative standing would benefit everybody. A key one is the extension of the licensing powers to include other aquatic organisms, seaweed, for example, which would provide a development opportunity for some fish farmers around our coast. So, the proposed powers offer of a number of opportunities.

Mr McCaughan: It is important to realise that the Fisheries Act goes back to 1966, when there was no aquaculture. At that time, the Ministry of Commerce set up Movanagher fish farm on the Bann, using an old mill race and mill site to experiment with the production of trout and to try to devise a mechanism for producing fish and thus an additional mechanism for aquaculture. When the Act was devised, it had two licences because it was foreseen that aquaculture and production of fish would focus on native species. The second licence, the shellfish fishery, or marine fish fishery, licence gives the owner of an area where fish farming is to be carried out ownership of this native species so that an individual cannot go on to that fish farm and say, "That trout does not belong to you. It is not cultivated. It belongs to me, and I am fishing for it." It could be oysters or whatever.

Since then, we have gone through a complete evolution in aquaculture. I brought with me a chart to show the scale, because people do not really understand how much fish farming there is. Here is a picture of Belfast lough, and all the wee patches are areas leased from the Crown Estate and actively farmed for mussels. Arguably, there is not a lot of space left. We are talking about an industry that has developed. In one area on this chart, no mussels were farmed until 1989, but now the place is full of claims for farms, and it is supporting a growing industry. As a consequence of this and developments in the oyster sector — particularly in response to the disease in France that resulted in our waters, which are cooler and much less prone to disease, being very popular with the French — we need an up-to-date modification of the Act to accommodate this industry. If we do not modify it, we will be the poor relative in Europe. The modifications do not take away from any of the existing protections that are afforded by consultation and the article 6 assessments prepared by the habitats directive. They simply streamline it.

Mr Byrne: I appreciate the answer. Is it envisaged, however, that this extra regulation will lead to growth in the industry?

Mr Terrington: First, as Mark said, there is not an awful lot of room for expansion in the sea, but there has been expansion on land through the advances in the technology for on-land systems. Output has improved in some places where the same amount of land, the seabed, is producing more efficiently, but there are certainly limits on the potential to expand, particularly at sea.

Mr McCaughan: With wise governance, the amendments to the Act will also allow us to revoke licences that are not being used. Unfortunately, a number of these were for entrepreneurs, experimenters and Heath Robinsons who succeeded in getting a licence up to 20 years ago. Some are even deceased, yet the licences still exist, and others have not been developed at all. For some, the investment was withdrawn and they did not move ahead. With the amendments, we will be able to release the ground currently licensed to non-development. There is an opportunity there.

The second area of opportunity is technical developments. I do not think that people realised in the 1970s how many oysters we would be producing for the French market, so there is potential there. There is also potential for individuals who are retiring to lease or sell their consent to a younger developer. My mobile phone is now full of French names. Frenchmen are coming here to grow oysters because of the calamity brought about by a virus in France. The sector continues to evolve and develop.

Mr Poots: I hear what you are saying about the aquaculture side, but, on the fisheries side, the Department's letter states:

So it goes on. It strikes me as more of a fisheries enforcement Bill than a Fisheries Bill. I am not sure whether you gentlemen are aware of it, but the fishing industry is on its knees. Our Government's response is to implement much more rigorous enforcement powers against an industry that needs help. I do not see anything about streamlining or making enforcement or regulation more efficient; it is all about how we will further punish people in the fishing industry and how we can punish them more easily if they have a modicum of fish over what they are supposed to have caught according to the EU rules.

Mr Terrington: It is worth saying that it is primarily enforcement legislation. That is what the 1966 and 1967 Acts are. That said, as I said in my introduction, stakeholders are generally in support of strong regulation. They have called for greater or better enforcement to protect the sustainability of future generations from those who go beyond the rules. The increases are a way of deterring people from wrongdoing and protecting fisheries. The fixed penalties that you referred to —

Mr Poots: I hear what you are saying; I do not hear how you are helping the fishing industry.

Mr Terrington: We argue that it helps because it is important to protect those who fish legitimately.

Mr Poots: Aside from enforcement, how do you help it? How are you streamlining regulation through the Bill? How are you making it easier to get licensing? Will you reduce the cost through streamlining? The industry needs help, and all that you put forward is that you will be more punitive.

Mr Terrington: The Fisheries Bill is about enforcement. However, there are other things that the Department —

Mr Poots: Will there be more efficient enforcement?

Mr Terrington: Mark, do you have anything to say about fishing enforcement and grant aid?

Mr McCaughan: Enforcement is expensive. Putting a patrol boat to sea for a face-to-face is expensive. There are areas where technological developments are helping us, Mr Poots. We have a lot of satellite surveillance and we now have electronic recording of fish. There are areas that expedite enforcement and streamline that aspect of it. Where the industry is vulnerable is where an individual does untold biological damage to the stock for his own reward. That requires individuals to be at the fish markets to see the fish come off the boat.

The fishing industry has its difficulties. Against the backdrop of tightening and changing European legislation, we intend to move to a situation where we have no discards of fish and highly selective gear that will enable biology to grow. Currently, the industry is highly dependent on prawns and, to a certain extent, it is changing over to scallops. The pelagic sector — herring and mackerel — is quite buoyant, but it is a very reduced sector.

Departments cannot put more fish in the sea, but they have to create a system of rules that enable that biology to progress. That is part of the role of the Bill. Elsewhere, they can help with providing grant aid to the sector, modernising and seeing value added through the processing. We can grant-aid that as well. This is simply part of a picture. We need a firm Bill to enable us to keep a system of ground rules.

Mr Paddy Campbell (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): There are a couple of things in the Bill that I think will be of benefit, but I can understand how, on first sight, you would maybe not appreciate them.

One thing that we want to do is to make a small technical amendment to section 30 of the Fisheries Act 1981 that would allow us to directly enforce EU obligations. Currently, the inshore side of the industry is saying to us that it wants us to bring in regulations for queen scallops and for brown crabs. It wants us to control a number of things for inshore fisheries, but we cannot put resources into doing so through legislation at the moment because we have to have legislation to enforce EU rules. That has to take priority because, if we do not implement the EU regulations, we would be under threat of infraction from Europe.

Amending section 30 would allow us to enforce a lot of the EU regulations directly. We could say to the industry, "The EU is telling you that you have to stay in a particular area; you just follow the EU legislation as soon as it is made". That would save us from having to spend time on making subordinate legislation to enforce EU legislation, which would mean that that resource could then be devoted more to the inshore sector, which is where the industry tells us it wants it. As a result of that, secondly, we would be able to do away with a number of regulations on the statute books that would no longer be needed. That would reduce the number of regulations that we have.

We already have fixed administrative penalties to deal with EU offences. They give the fisherman the opportunity to choose to pay a monetary penalty rather than go to court, where they would possibly be convicted and get a criminal record. We are talking about introducing those through the Bill to deal with offences under the 1966 Act. Again, that would enable us to offer the fisherman the opportunity to pay a fixed administrative penalty rather than them being brought straight to court, being found guilty of a Fisheries Act offence and getting a criminal record.

This is not an easy-touch option for the Department. We are very clear, and we have said that, as far as EU offences are concerned, we will not offer somebody the choice of a fixed administrative penalty unless we have sufficient evidence that he would otherwise go to court. If we did not have sufficient evidence, that would be undermined. It is not a short cut. It is a means of dealing with the offence speedily in a manner that the fisherman appreciates: he can get it out of his way; he does not have to worry about it; he pays some money; and he carries on fishing. That is of benefit to the fisherman.

Mr Poots: It will be interesting to see what the stakeholders have to say.

Mr McMullan: You say that fishing in the marine is pretty limited, but there is scope for some more. What representation did you make on the proposed Marine Bill on fishing in the marine and the proposed zones?

Mr Terrington: I will refer you to my colleagues. The Marine Bill predates my existence in fisheries, although I know that the Department did get concessions and make changes.

Mr P Campbell: For the marine conservation zones (MCZs) that DEFRA is proposing that are in the Irish Sea, we have set up a system where DEFRA and our own local stakeholders are working together to redefine the boundaries and come up with areas that better suit our Northern Ireland fishermen and not the ones that were originally proposed. That work is ongoing.

Mr McMullan: Would it not be better to do that before this so that we see if they agree to that? I am thinking about, for example, around Rathlin, where the MCZs are being set up. We still allow people to come in and drill on the seabed, but you are not allowed to fish. There is a conflict there.

Mr P Campbell: Drilling in Rathlin is possibly going to be on land. They are two separate processes. The DOE Marine Act deals with MCZs. This Bill does not deal with that.

Mr McMullan: Where do the local authorities come in?

Mr Terrington: At this point, they have no statutory role in sea fisheries.

Mr Kenny Parker (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development): Are you talking about for the designations?

Mr McMullan: Yes.

Mr Parker: I cannot speak for DOE, but my understanding of the process is that, once it has come up with the proposed designations for the MCZs, it will undertake a formal consultation with all stakeholders.

Mr McMullan: Are there not planning issues with a fish farm, for example?

Mr Terrington: The Department is responsible for the process for fish farming. When somebody applies for a licence for fish farming, there is a series of statutory consultations that we need to go through, including what can lead to a public appeal hearing for people to make notice of their issues with it. That is all taken on board in the licensing of fish farms.

Mr McMullan: Good. Does that include the Crown Estate? Is it answerable to those consultations, appeals and information gathering?

Mr Parker: If somebody applies for a fish farm in the marine environment, before we can process an application, we require a number of other consents; namely, consent in principle from the owner of the seabed, which, for most of the coast around Northern Ireland, is the Crown Estate.

Mr McMullan: Who is it answerable to?

Mr Parker: In what sense?

Mr McMullan: In every sense.

Mr Parker: It owns the seabed.

Mr McMullan: If you are out fishing, you are answerable to some onshore environmental authority or whatever. Local authorities are answerable, and people are answerable to local authorities. Who is the Crown Estate answerable to? They are the people who own the seabed and who allow people to set up whatever they want.

Mr Parker: They are responsible for administering the Crown Estate.

Mr McMullan: So they are not answerable to you at all.

Mr Parker: If the applicant makes a licence application and gets the Crown Estate's consent in principle — it does not give formal consent straight way — the applicant must then go and get consent from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency that what he is proposing to do will not be a navigational hazard. Once the application is there, and if the Department is minded to grant the licence, it must assess the environmental impact of that proposed development. In the case of a finfish farm, the applicant would also have to apply to DOE for a marine licence. There are several consenting processes that an applicant must go through.

Mr McMullan: You are quite right. There is a paper trail, but my question is this: who is the Crown Estate answerable to? It is answerable to nobody, and that is a flaw in all this. There is one group outside of everything. You talked about the navigational aid. We saw what happened in Islandmagee on the proposed outlet from the sludge going into the sea, but the Crown Estate was not involved in anything. We have a group that is the main driver of anything to do with marine, but it is not answerable to anybody, and I think that that is a flaw.

Mr McCaughan: To build on that point: the Crown Estate owns the seabed, and the Crown Estate agrees, in principle, to form a lessee arrangement with a developer, whether that is for a pipeline, the interconnector coming to Islandmagee, the brine pipeline going out of Islandmagee or a fish farm. The Department makes the decision on whether that development will proceed for a fish farm, and the Department carries out the consultation and all the examinations of the impact on that fish farm. If the fish farm does not progress, the lease with the Crown Estate does not progress, so the development process lies in the consent issued by the Department. The lease cannot exist without the licence, and the licence cannot exist without the lease. The Crown Estate's role is a simple lessee arrangement with the person who is going to occupy the ground.

Mr McMullan: Yes, but in all of that, the Crown Estate is not answerable to anybody.

Mr McCaughan: No, there is not a process by which that comes out into the public domain, except if a licence is required.

Mr McMullan: That is the point that I am making. You have everybody who is answerable to everybody, except the Crown Estate. It is outside the realms of everybody else. I agree with everything else you say. The point I am making is that the Crown Estate is outside of everything, so I think that is a flaw, because you do not know what is going on. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): You said earlier that this gives you the enforcement power over other boats fishing in our waters and also those from other jurisdictions — France and elsewhere. It gives you the power of enforcement over them, too, if you feel that they are breaking the rules.

Mr Parker: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Has that ever been used?

Mr Terrington: Absolutely. Again, Mark is probably best placed to give examples.

Mr McCaughan: Foreign vessels have relatively limited access to our waters because they do not have quota. Where they do have quota, they are subject to the same rules. Yes, I have boarded French trawlers in the past and a couple of Belgian trawlers. When we used to have Anglo-Spanish vessels, we boarded those as well.

Mr Byrne: Are there any protections for fishing vessels out at sea that might get entangled with submarines or other obstructions?

Mr Terrington: I apologise for again referring that to Mark, who has been very much involved with that issue in the last 48 hours.

Mr McCaughan: I have done little else. There was an incident last Wednesday when an unidentified submarine made contact with a vessel in what was a perilous exercise for the surface craft. At this stage, the Minister has written to the Secretary of State requesting that she take the matter up with the Minister of Defence. Excuse me if I take a bit of a run-up here. We had a situation in the late 1980s and early 1990s where we had the Polaris fleet based at Faslane. We also had the Trafalgar-class hunter-killer submarines based at Faslane, and the United States had a lease arrangement with Holy Loch on the Clyde to keep their north Atlantic fleet serviced there, and that brought additional submarines to the Clyde coming through the Irish Sea or through the North Channel. At that stage, there was quite a lot of submarine traffic, and with a greater focus on coastal fisheries as opposed to distant water fisheries, going right back to the days of Iceland, with the fishing vessels coming closer to shore, there was, inevitably, a conflict. Submarines have no detailed rules in relation to their activities below the surface. On the surface, they are not required to display numbers. For obvious reasons, they are pretty cryptic.

In 1987, a Portavogie vessel was towed backwards on the Irish Sea. We formed a liaison group at Faslane, which I attended and Dick James attended for the industry. We began to work on a detailed set of rules for these subs when they are passing fishing vessels. Regrettably, in 1990, HMS Trenchant, which is a Trafalgar-class submarine, was on exercise in the mouth of the Clyde and accidentally sunk a vessel called Antares, killing four people. Subsequent to that, we worked through these detailed rules. They are quite long, but, in brief, they require a submarine that is travelling deep — below periscope depth, which I take to be 26 metres — to surface if it detects a fishing vessel within 4,000 yards, which is two nautical miles. It should not come closer to a fishing vessel than two nautical miles when deep. If it is within periscope depth, it should make contact with that fishing vessel to let it know that it is there and should not come closer than 1,500 yards to that vessel while submerged. It must surface. If there is an incident where it makes physical contact with a fishing vessel, it is required to gently power down and stop, make contact with the vessel at periscope depth and come to the surface with men, a team to go into the casing, to assist the fishing vessel. Importantly, the safety of life is paramount and is the overriding consideration.

In last Wednesday's incident, none of that protocol was observed. The assumption is that either they did not abide by the protocol or they were not from a nation that abides by the protocol. It is not just the Royal Navy that abides by the protocol; all allied nations do: the US; France; and Germany. Any of their submarines abide by that protocol, and their commanding officers are briefed on that protocol before they are allowed to dive in UK waters. It is one or the other. Last night, the Minister met the fishermen involved on the quay at Ardglass. She seems determined to get an explanation. It is unfinished business.

Mr McMullan: Is there any system of compensation for these accidents?

Mr McCaughan: The Ministry of Defence (MoD) operates a compensation scheme for approved claims, which would be left with me to forward to the people responsible. In this case, it would be through the flag officer at Faslane. That relates to what we would consider almost a normal claim for someone retrieving a dummy torpedo or a practice mine or something and damaging their trawl gear in the process. For this, when it has not been substantiated who is responsible, it is not clear to me whether the MoD would honour such a claim. That discussion will have to take place.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): I note that the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers' Organisation (ANIFPO) responded to the consultation and has some concerns. What about the other fisheries organisation, the Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation (NIFPO)? What is its position?

Mr Terrington: We met them in Portavogie when developing the proposals. They were aware that we were doing this. We asked for any thoughts or input that they had at the time. Many of their concerns — Paddy referred to some of them — were about bringing in new or amending existing regulations made under the 1966 Act, and legislation that does not require primary legislative change may require subordinate legislation.

We contacted a number of stakeholders whom we had met during the development and offered them an opportunity to talk to us, assuming that they would respond, but we got no response. We take it that there was nothing that was particularly difficult for them in the proposals, but you would have to ask them that yourselves.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): One would have thought that they would have responded. What is the timescale for the introduction of the Bill?

Mr Terrington: We are working to its introduction pre-summer, but, at this stage, that is out of our hands and will require a fair bit of work from us and from the Office of the Legislative Counsel. We recognise that it has a number of competing priorities. We are due to talk tomorrow. That may give us clearer indication of whether there is scope or not.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): Have you any idea when the draft Bill will go to the Executive?

Mr Terrington: By the middle of June. Again, that is an indicative working timetable, but, as I say, it is partly outside our gift at this stage. We will do what we can. Hopefully, others will be able to help us. We will know better tomorrow after we meet counsel.

The Chairperson (Mr Irwin): OK. Thank you very much for your presentation.