Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome the following officials who will be invited to brief the Committee: Gareth Dillon, deputy director of marine and fisheries division in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; Fiona Taylor, head of sea fisheries policy branch in the Department; Patrick Smith, policy officer, sea fisheries policy branch; and Dr Carrie McMinn, fisheries and aquatic ecosystems branch at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI).

Thank you very much for joining us this morning; I am sure that you are all excited to start your week off by coming to the Committee. It has been a really good session so far, and you have the benefit of having listened to the other witnesses. It is always nicer to go last. We should have brought you guys in first. We will do that next time. I will open the floor to you guys to give us whatever update you want — you may wish to comment on what you have heard — and then there will be questions from the Committee.

Mr Gareth Dillon (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I have some opening remarks, if that is OK. We will be happy to take questions after that.

Commercial shellfish gathering can provide valuable jobs and income to coastal communities. If fishing practices are not managed sustainably, however, there is an obvious risk of the collapse of the fishery, which would lead to job losses and loss of income for fish processors, and there would, of course, be an impact on the coastal communities.

In June 2022, the Department launched a 12-week consultation seeking views on the development of management measures for the unregulated intertidal hand-gathering of shellfish in Northern Ireland. The consultation documentation emphasised that the Department held limited information on the commercial scale of the fishery because of its being unregulated. The consultation documentation also stated that having a more accurate idea of the economic value of gathering practices would help the Department to assess the economic impact of different types of regulation and build that into the decision-making process, helping to minimise any negative impact incurred through introducing new regulations. The documentation also requested that any evidence available on the economic value of gathering should be provided by respondents in order to inform the formulation of potential management options. The consultation itself was distributed electronically to stakeholders and was made available on the DAERA website. Whenever possible, DAERA staff engaged with harvesters and the public in the field in order to raise awareness of the consultation among those who might be affected by its proposals.

The AFBI Strangford lough study, a regulatory impact assessment and a rural needs impact assessment were also published alongside a habitat regulations assessment. The research undertaken by AFBI on periwinkles in Strangford lough showed that the spawning peak was between February and March and recommended that a closed season from January to April would be the most effective time to protect future stock. The consultation received 37 responses, and the majority of respondents indicated their interest in marine conservation, recreation and the fishing industry. The consultation asked several important questions that were pertinent to the current regulations, and I will take those in turn.

The first question was about whether respondents supported the proposal for a closed season from January to April. Eighty-six per cent of those who responded to the consultation said yes, while 11% said no and 3% did not answer. One respondent who did not support the proposal for a closed season questioned the need for it as there had never been one before. None of the other respondents provided any additional context or information to clarify their answers.

The second question was about whether any of the proposed measures would have any impact on the respondent or on any particular sector of society. Importantly, respondents were asked to provide evidence in order to quantify and clarify their response. Twenty-four per cent of respondents said, "Yes, it would have an economic impact", while 65% said no, and 11% did not answer. Two respondents who objected to a closed season also indicated that there would be an economic impact but did not quantify or clarify what that was in any way. The remaining respondents who stated that there would be an economic impact supported a closed season. Some highlighted the potential for lost tax revenue. Many shellfish gatherers indicated that they were members of foreign national communities that could be impacted on by the proposals. Some, however, pointed out that better regulation of the fishery could lead to legitimate jobs and a more sustainable fishery that would safeguard their income for the future. One respondent stated that that would be worth the cost to them personally.

The third question was about whether respondents felt that any particular section of society would be negatively impacted by the management of shellfish gathering, and, again, they were asked to provide detail. Twenty-seven per cent said yes, 54% said no, and 19% did not answer. Again, two respondents who had objected to a closed season said yes but provided no further detail. Other respondents again highlighted members of foreign national communities who were employed to gather or who, perhaps, gathered for personal consumption. One respondent supported the proposition for a closure but suggested that gatherers and processors might be negatively impacted in the short term.

When we appeared before the Committee on 11 December 2025, we advised that it was our understanding that the export market was the greatest source for the periwinkles. We believed it to be in the region of 400 tons a year. I heard Mr Leeman mention 150 tons. Unfortunately, because the fishery is unregulated, it is difficult to be certain. I think that that 400-ton figure came from one of the local councils, which provided that information on the basis of the number of processors in the council area. When we were asked whether a closed season was likely to have a negative impact on the industry, we advised the Committee that it was our belief that the greatest export market for periwinkles was France over the winter period. We advised that, although a closure would have some impact on the industry, we did not believe that it would have a negative impact on that aspect of the market over the festive period, because the closure would come afterwards.

An intertidal hand-gathering of shellfish fisheries management plan (FMP) working group was established in 2024 to consider further findings from the consultation and assist in steering policies and proposed measures relating to the sustainable gathering of periwinkles within the framework of the fisheries management plan. A number of processors were invited to be members, and, at the same time, some processors were asked for their views on such things as a closed season and minimum size. The fisheries management plan working group met, I believe, quarterly, and there was further engagement with processors in September 2025, when seven known processors were written to, highlighting the significant support from the 2022 consultation for regulating a closed season from January to April to coincide with what, the scientific advice stated, was the peak spawning season. The Department also contacted 21 fish culture operators in October 2025 about a similar period.

The available scientific evidence from AFBI identifies January to April as the peak spawning period for periwinkles. It is an unregulated industry, so the information available to the Department on pickers and the amounts gathered and sold is somewhat limited. It is believed that a closed season will help to support the industry's long-term sustainability, as well as protecting sensitive habitats and species that depend on periwinkles either as a food source or on its locations for their own habitats. On the basis of the scientific evidence available to us, the consultation responses and ongoing stakeholder engagement, we believe that the justification for the regulations remains.

We are happy to take questions.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much. This might seem like an odd question, but I am always intrigued when departmental officials come before us from every Department, so it is nothing to do with DAERA. When it comes to a legacy understanding of the issue, Gareth, were you guys part of the team in 2022 when the consultation went out? Were you on it, Patrick?

Mr Patrick Smith (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): No.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Were you on it, Gareth?

Mr Dillon: No.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Were you on it, Fiona?

Ms Fiona Taylor (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): No.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Carrie, were you on it?

Dr Carrie McMinn (Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute): I have been working on periwinkles since 2011.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Brilliant. The starting point for me is that, of the four people who are giving evidence today, one was part of the project at the start. That is not to diminish anything that is said; it is just for me to get an understanding of it. I get that that is how things work in public service, but I struggle with it a little.

I asked because my next question is about the consultation in 2022. I will set out the context, and members will know exactly where I am going with this. I attended a planning consultation meeting two weeks ago. That consultation received 250 responses, 220 of which were from outside the geographical area of note. When you looked at the people who were speaking about the consultation, you saw that it was heavily weighted towards people who did not live in the area and on whom the plans would have no impact, but they had an interest in the matter from a different perspective. Is there a weighting of the people who responded to the consultation, and do you know who responded? Was it totally anonymous? Are you confident that the responses were a fair reflection, given that the Department has admitted that, in 2022, it had no understanding of the economic viability of that part of the industry?

Mr Dillon: Generally, consultations ask background questions, including asking the person to identify themselves. In this instance, respondents were asked whether they gathered and sold periwinkles, whether they knew other people who did so and what their interest was. As I said, among the 37 respondents were a number of NGOs and people with interests in the recreational side or industry side. People from a marine conservation background also had an interest and responded to the consultation.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): You said that some stakeholder information was shared in October 2025. At the time of the consultation, what did stakeholder involvement in it look like?

Mr Dillon: All consultations are promoted in a certain way. There is a certain cohort of stakeholders to whom a consultation is promoted. There were key —.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Were there stakeholder events? Sorry, I did not mean the consultation. There is the consultation that goes up online and to which I can respond. Were there stakeholder events where people were brought into a room, rather than a consultation period? Given that DAERA openly admits that it did not have a lot of information on the matter, did it seek a lot more information at that time? What information did it gather in the three and a half years between 2022 and 2026?

Mr Smith: The consultation was undertaken by the marine policy team — it has landed with us because we are responsible for fisheries legislation — but there was some pre-engagement prior to the consultation going live. The consultation response document was drawn up, and it was cleared with the new Minister when he came into office —

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): When we came back to work.

Mr Smith: — in 2024.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I said that bit for you.

Mr Smith: That is a bit of context on the timing of the consultation. The report had been sitting, pending clearance by a Minister.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): To be fair, the Minister has had challenges, because a lot of work has been sitting on desks, but I am not convinced that a lot of work was done between 2022 and 2026 to get the stakeholders' views, apart from the consultation. You jumped quickly to October 2025.

Mr Dillon: We had the interregnum, obviously, but the purpose of a consultation is to fill in some of the blanks in our understanding. Stakeholders and respondents were asked in particular to provide further information or quantify some of their responses. That is what we tried to achieve through the consultation. When the institutions were restored in February 2024, work was undertaken to finalise and publish the synopsis report, and the FMP working group was established. Certainly, some processors were invited to participate in that.

Mr Blair: There you go.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): A few witnesses whom we heard from today did not intimate that they had been included in that.

Mr Smith: The joint fisheries statement, which was published in 2022, committed the UK policy authorities the delivery of forty-something FMPs within a certain time frame. There was then a consultation. The initial deadlines for publication for many of the FMPs were unrealistic. You will recall our briefing to the Committee in November 2024 that there was a UK-wide consultation. That looked at the annex listing the plans, essentially, and a lot of the publication deadlines were shifted.

We took the opportunity to include the periwinkles consultation in one of the FMPs. A response to that consultation from one of the previous witnesses gave rise to our thinking that the periwinkles issue does not sit easily in an inshore FMP for the catching sector, so a new FMP on intertidal hand-gathering that included all the other species was created. However, we already had the scientific report on periwinkles, so, in 2024, we were considering legislation on a minimum size and a closed period, because recommendations on those things were coming through strongly in the AFBI report and the consultation.

At the briefing in 2024, a member asked whether we needed to wait until after 2027 to implement any of the measures that might be in the FMP, which would mean that it would be 2028 before anything was brought in. We explained to the Committee that we could use the existing powers in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 to legislate on the conservation and preservation of any fishery.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That points to a question that I asked Robert: what measurement has DAERA or AFBI made of the impact of just rolling the provisions up in the FMP for 2027? What is the anticipated impact on periwinkles of not making the regulations? Everybody understands that regulation is absolutely required, because it is about an ecosystem and an economic system: it is all interconnected. What would the impact be?

Mr Dillon: The statutory deadline for consultation on and publication of the FMP is December 2027, and the legislation has to follow that. It would not necessarily be the case that December 2027 would be the time by which regulations must follow; there would have to be a period for policy development, consultation and things of that nature.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That is the impact on the legislation. What would be the impact on periwinkles?

Mr Dillon: That was just to frame it as regards the timescales involved.

Ms Taylor: That might be one for Carrie to answer.

Dr McMinn: I am a scientist, so I base the impact on evidence. It is unknown what the impact would be. There could be no impact from delaying it; it could be small; or it could be significant. We just do not know. The study was done in 2015-16 and is already 10 years down the line, so I cannot answer whether delaying the legislation would cause an impact.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): There is certainly no red flag here to say that there will be a species wipeout or anything imminent that will affect the ecosystem or the rare birds. I have been down with Robert in regard to that. The Committee is mindful that it is a complicated Committee. When it was put together, agriculture brought everything in. We are interested not only in agriculture and environmental stuff but in the economic viability of small towns. The impact on small towns around the coast is as hard as and sometimes harder than that on our farming communities, so it is a really difficult one for us. That is why we are trying to tease the issue out.

Fiona, do you want to come in?

Ms Taylor: Waiting for the FMP publication date should not delay our bringing in regulations where we have evidence. Someone asked why it was periwinkles first: that is where there is the most fishing pressure in respect of those intertidal species. We also have the Strangford lough study to base those measures on. Therefore, we have a stepping stone, and a lot of groundwork has already been done on that. The initial consultation was based on periwinkles alone, but, because of other requests and the threat of pressure to other species, that has now been extended more widely. However, we need further scientific information before we start to regulate on those other species.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Ms Finnegan: This was discussed earlier, but, given that there is no current equivalent ban in the South, is there a risk that hand-gathering activity will simply be displaced to neighbouring waters, such as Carlingford lough, rather than being reduced overall?

Mr Dillon: It is hard to predict the trends and patterns, but that is certainly a possibility. If there is a ban in one area, activity may shift to another area, and it may then tip that area into unsustainability. Again, saying that would be speculative on our part.

Ms Finnegan: Given your answer, my follow-up question was going to be about any engagement the Department has had with our counterparts in the South, but I presume that that has not happened.

Mr Dillon: No.

Ms Finnegan: Are there any future plans to ensure that, given that they are shared waterways, there will be engagement with Southern counterparts?

Ms Taylor: That is something that we can do, and we will share our plans to regulate with our colleagues in the Republic of Ireland. We would definitely like to engage with them on that. We do not want to displace gatherers into other areas and are happy to work with colleagues in the Republic of Ireland, should they want to bring in similar measures.

Mr Smith: We are trying to engage with them. There has been a long-standing invite for such engagement, and that is still pending. We are trying to get a date in our diaries with the head of sea fisheries. Some of our enforcement colleagues meet representatives from the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA) in the South, but, from a policy angle, we are trying to get something in the diary to meet them.

Ms Taylor: We have a number of policy issues that we wish to discuss. We have such shared interests, so we really want to have discussions with its representatives.

Ms Finnegan: That is interesting, and it is positive that you have already made that engagement. You are still waiting to hear back.

Ms Taylor: We are waiting for availability at the moment.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you for your presentation. I am going over ground that has perhaps been covered, but one of the major criticisms that have come across our desks in the past 10 days is the lack of engagement with the industry. I appreciate that you have detailed the fact that you have had the working group for the FMPs, and you have had conversations in that forum. Why are we in the situation today where industry representatives feel that they did not know until last weekend that this was going to happen? How did we end up in this place?

Mr Dillon: We recognise the Committee's concerns about the communication of the implementation of the regulations and engagement with stakeholders. It is an unregulated industry, so we do not have a list of hand-gatherers.

In one of the Committee's previous evidence sessions, Mr Leeman from Seafresh mentioned that there could be between 80 and 100 hand-gatherers along the Northern Irish coast, but we do not know who any of them are. I think that it may have been the consultation synopsis report that referred to the fact that when officials were in the field and promoting the consultation, they came across people who were hand-gathering, but there is a limit to how far we can go with that approach. The consultation was published through the normal channels. When we got the numbers of processors who responded, we wrote to them, albeit that was afterwards, with invitations to the FMP working group. The working group's remit included not just the periwinkle proposals and the present regulations but the wider considerations that we want to form part of the FMP, such as landing size, a night curfew and so on.

There was engagement in 2024. In 2025, processors were invited to be part of the FMP working group. There are fairly regular catch-ups or engagements with industry representatives, and those proposals would have been communicated through that. We appreciate, however, that there absolutely are lessons to be learnt. We are keen to improve our approach to communication. We are always keen to engage with stakeholders, where we can, but we were limited in our engagement, to a certain degree, by the fact that the fishery is unregulated.

Miss McIlveen: I appreciate that, but there is a limited number of processors. We are talking about there being two or three of them. Those processors have the contact details for their gatherers, because it is from them that they get their stocks. That aspect of the work should not have been too onerous. There are certainly lessons to be taken from that.

Had there been better communication, we might not be having this discussion today, and perhaps the Committee would not be reconsidering its position on moving forward with the regulations. How definitive were your conversations with the working group? You had been working on the regulations for some time. Did the conversations present the regulations as something that would definitely come in or as something that you might look at? I still am not clear about what the conversations with the processors and stakeholders were.

Mr Smith: We have the intertidal FMP working group. There is a commitment to deliver on that by 2027. When we convened the first couple of meetings of the working group, some stuff had come out of the AFBI study. That study had the recommendations, and there was support through the consultation. A draft SR was considered at those working group meetings, one of which, initially, was about having a closed season for periwinkles of a minimum size. We subsequently thought that we might take a one-size-fits-all approach, with a closed season for all five species. AFBI and other stakeholders sit on that working group, and it became apparent that that would not work, because all the other species have different spawning periods. We therefore revisited that, rowed back on it and came up with a draft statutory rule, which was put to the Minister and Committee prior to Christmas. That was before the new arrangements for the SL1 scrutiny process. That was not deliberate, by the way.

Miss McIlveen: Unfortunately, the benefits of what is being proposed have been lost, given the lack of communication with industry in the preparation of the proposal. That communication would have afforded those in the industry time to have conversations with those who have placed orders with them. The economic piece now concerns me. In some ways, the issue has neutralised where I am on the benefits of the regulations at this point, and it may be about looking at further compromise, if there are opportunities for that, or revisiting the matter at a later date, if there is a willingness to have a conversation with the processors.

Ms Taylor: When it comes to engagement, we also have the inshore fisheries partnership group. We provide regular updates to that group on how the fisheries management plan working group is progressing. We also meet our producer organisations monthly. In October, we updated Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation (ANIFPO) and Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation (NIFPO) on our plans to bring forward the regulation.

We have highlighted throughout the minutes of the working group's meetings the fact that engagement with processors has been particularly difficult to get. We would really appreciate further engagement with them and welcome closer engagement. We are completely happy to engage more closely them on the future development of the fisheries management plan, because their viewpoints are really valuable in the development of that type of regulation.

Mr Blair: You said that invites to the FMP working group were issued to sectoral representatives, but I have not heard whether they accepted them. Did they accept those invites and participate in that process?

Mr Dillon: I think that, originally, four invitations were issued. I know from the minutes that at least one processor participated, originally, at least. That was supplemented by some of the correspondence that I mentioned in April 2024, September 2025 and October 2025 and by the meetings that Fiona mentioned. Engagement with the processors has been challenging. I do not know why. Obviously, we would welcome more engagement and are open to having more, but it brings difficulties.

Mr Blair: OK. Representative bodies attended the meetings of the inshore partnership group that Fiona mentioned, and, in October, there was a discussion about the forthcoming proposal for the SR and the closed season.

Mr Smith: In October? No, we had an inshore fisheries partnership group meeting in November. At the one prior to that, we flagged up that we were minded to bring forward legislation for a closed season for periwinkles.

Ms Taylor: It would have been March.

Mr Smith: I think that it was June.

Mr Blair: People from the representative bodies, one of whom provided evidence this morning, were at that meeting. Is that right?

Mr Smith: They were not at it. There was an apology from them. It was recorded in the minutes.

Ms Taylor: They were at the industry meeting in October.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): This is genuinely not a criticism of you guys, but, as Patrick pointed out, the system for issuing SL1s and further SRs has now changed. Under the new regime, this probably could have been avoided somewhat. Had we had the SL1, we would have sought witnesses, and then we would not be at the stage at which the Committee is now going reconsider moving the regulations forward. There is no doubt — this is my opinion; I am not speaking for the Committee — that regulation is required, but I will have to put a question to the Committee shortly.

You are welcome to stay. Do members have any further points?

Ms Murphy: As we were being briefed, I found the AFBI report that contained the dataset from 2015-16. What is your scientific opinion of using a dataset that is 10 years old, which some might perceive as outdated, to present an SR or any type of legislation?

Dr McMinn: If you look back at data on when periwinkles spawn across the rest of the UK, you will see that most of the studies were done in the 1970s. Major studies were done in 1973 and 1975. They found that all the other spawning times were between February and June at the latest. Ours falls within that range. There is no change between the findings from the 1970s and those from nowadays. Obviously, I cannot say for certain that there has been no change since we did that report, but I am quite content to go with the data that we collected in 2015-16. It is accurate.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Members, is there anything else before I move on to the next piece of the meeting?

Ms Murphy: I have another quick question.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): You are like William; he used to say, "Just another wee one".

Ms Murphy: A wee one. Was an economic impact assessment carried out by the Department? I do not know whether we are going to get sight of it.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We will be putting the Question shortly, so an answer to that would be great.

Mr Smith: A regulatory impact assessment accompanied the 2022 consultation, as Gareth mentioned in his initial remarks. There were three options. The first was to simply do nothing and leave the thing totally unregulated; the second was to totally close everything down; and the third was to bring in some form of management measures, which was the option that was put out to consultation. There was an economic impact assessment as part of that regulatory impact assessment. It was published with the consultation.

Ms Murphy: I have the SR with the regulatory impact detailed. There is no mention of specific economic impacts that are linked to each of those three options. I do not know whether the Department has anything pinned down on that.

Mr Dillon: That comes back to the difficulty that, even to this day, the size of the industry has not been quantified. We have various indications of when the peak value would be. We do not know what is sold over a 12-month period and the trends in that regard. Without that information, it is very difficult to quantify it with any real certainty.

Ms Murphy: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much. You are more than welcome to hang fire to hear the final words of the Committee.