Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Officials from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will brief the Committee and answer members' questions. We have with us today Owen Lyttle, the director of marine and fisheries division, and Colin Armstrong, the deputy director of water and marine policy and legislation. From the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill team, we have Tommy McCormick and Alison McCaw. Guys, please feel free to brief the Committee.

Mr Owen Lyttle (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Chair and members of the Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to update the Committee on the upcoming Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill.

I will set out a bit of background, cover communications and stakeholder engagement and then, before summing up, touch on inland fisheries, inland and sea enforcement, aquaculture and protection of the water environment. This Executive Bill spans a number of policy areas within my remit. As you are aware, the Bill has not yet been introduced in the Assembly, so this will be a high-level briefing. Officials are happy to return to the Committee for a more detailed evidence session following the Bill's introduction.

By way of context, I will briefly outline the Department's role and the sectors that we regulate. Fisheries are devolved, but the position for inland fisheries in Northern Ireland is more specific than that broad framing suggests. DAERA's functions are primarily grounded in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, which provides for policy responsibility, regulatory oversight and operational delivery. Its remit is therefore mixed, spanning policy, regulation and direct activity.

The Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill is intended to update and modernise the 1966 framework and related legislation. The current legal framework is fragmented and outdated and does not reflect modern environmental standards or policy priorities, including ecosystem-based management and the impacts of climate change. New primary legislation is required in order to introduce statutory objectives and duties for the Department, to expand regulation-making powers, to reform enforcement frameworks and penalties and to modernise licensing structures.

The UK Fisheries Act 2020 and the joint fisheries statement from 2022 establish an overarching framework for the marine environment, including eight fisheries objectives along with high-level policies to deliver sustainable, profitable sectors that are supported by a resilient marine ecosystem. The ambition that the Bill will seek to align with is the delivery of world-class sustainable fisheries and aquaculture. Achieving that in Northern Ireland will require updated primary legislation and an equivalent framework for inland waters.

I will now touch on communications and stakeholder engagement. Policy development has been ongoing since summer 2024 and has included co-design with key stakeholders. Two public consultations were undertaken. One was on fisheries and aquaculture policy and took place between July and September 2025, receiving 61 responses, while the other was on water and environment protection and took place between September and November 2025, receiving 65 responses, alongside a petition with 1,740 signatures. The Committee has been provided with summaries of the responses. Officials have continued engagement throughout the Bill's development, including holding detailed discussions with fish farmers to ensure that impacts on businesses have been considered fully and that refinements have been made, where necessary.

Our approach to inland fisheries is framed around conservation, protection and improvement, rather than around maximising catch. Although they are commercially modest, inland fisheries are disproportionately significant in recreational, cultural and policy terms. Commercial activity primarily relates to eel fisheries, particularly the Lough Neagh eel fishery, and, historically, to salmon netting, which is now heavily restricted for conservation purposes. Angling is of major importance, and DAERA facilitates access to up to 89 public waters and invests in facilities and stock enhancement, reflecting the clear public value beyond the market value. To give a sense of scale, 27,806 recreational licences were issued in 2025, of which 968 were freshwater commercial licences, while 103 individual commercial fishers held licences.

Those figures demonstrate regional economic value, local employment and cultural importance. Historically, management focused on individual species and catch regulations. We are moving to an ecosystem-based approach that considers habitats, water quality and wider pressures. The Bill will establish a framework for a science-based, transparent and adaptive system, with clear duties placed on the Department to plan, consult and act in line with sustainability objectives and wider societal objectives. It will introduce a set of statutory objectives for inland waters that is aligned with the UK model, including minimising and, where possible, reversing ecosystem harm; supporting long-term environmental sustainability alongside economic and social benefits; and maintaining or restoring fish populations. That will move ecosystem thinking from guidance into law. The framework balances environmental sustainability, economic and social outcomes and scientific advice, with interpretation and application set out in a policy statement in order to ensure that there is proportionality and accountability. Expanded regulation-making powers will provide flexibility to respond to scientific, environmental and international developments without requiring repeated primary legislation.

The Bill will establish a comprehensive and modern enforcement framework across inland and sea fisheries. It will consolidate powers and introduce a more flexible and proportionate penalty regime, enabling minor offences to be dealt with efficiently while maintaining strong sanctions for serious breaches. Maximum penalties will be increased to reflect current values and to align with neighbouring jurisdictions. A key reform will be the move from fragmented powers to a modern regulatory toolkit that includes enforcement powers equivalent to those that are available elsewhere in the UK. That is particularly important offshore, where Northern Ireland has historically lagged behind. The Bill will introduce a graduated enforcement approach, with fixed penalty notices for minor offences, administrative penalties for low-level breaches and strengthened prosecution for serious offences, particularly those that involve environmental damage. That represents a deliberate shift towards deterrence and proportionality.

The aquaculture provisions represent a modernisation and restructuring of the current system. They will move Northern Ireland from a narrow licence-driven approach to a more integrated, ecosystem-based regime. The Bill will establish a clear licensing framework, ensure continuity of existing licences, introduce formal transfer mechanisms and expand the scope beyond fish farming to include shellfish and aquatic plants. That reflects the evolution of the sector and provides stability for operators while enabling future growth. Embedding aquaculture in an ecosystem-based framework ensures consistency of biodiversity and water-quality objectives. The Bill will support a joined-up system in which aquaculture, fisheries, habitats and water quality are managed together, reflecting real-world interactions.

The draft Bill also signals support for a vibrant, profitable and sustainable sector that is aligned with the UK Fisheries Act and the joint fisheries statement. A more transparent and streamlined licensing system will reduce barriers for new entrants and support innovation, diversification and expansion.

Finally, on the protection of the water environment, the Bill will elevate water quality to being a central objective. It will introduce a strengthened and more consistent enforcement regime for pollution and water-related offences, with increased penalties to reflect the seriousness of environmental harm in order to ensure fairness across offenders. New powers will enable fixed penalty notices for offences under the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. That will address the current limitation, where only summary conviction is available for relatively minor offences. That will allow minor breaches to be addressed proportionally without unnecessary criminalisation, while maintaining accountability.

More broadly, the draft Bill adopts a whole-system approach to water management, integrating habitats, species and water quality across rivers, lakes and coastal waters. As such, water protection moves beyond responding to pollution incidents and becomes a part of wider ecosystem management. The Lough Neagh report highlights the need for enhanced enforcement, including fixed penalties and updated fines. The draft Bill responds to that by strengthening enforcement while ensuring that measures remain proportionate and effective.

In conclusion, the Bill will provide a modern, coherent framework for managing fisheries, aquaculture and the water environment in Northern Ireland. It will align inland and marine policy, embed an ecosystem-based approach, strengthen enforcement and support sustainable economic activity. Crucially, the Bill will enhance the protection of key assets such as Lough Neagh and all aquatic environments, deter non-compliance and enable DAERA to fulfil its statutory duty to promote the conservation and cleanliness of water resources.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much. I appreciate your opening statement. I remind members that this is a high-level briefing. The draft Bill is in members' pack, but it has been shared on an in-confidence basis. I therefore ask members to keep their questions in that space, if that is OK.

You will be aware that the Committee recently completed the Committee Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. One of the things that we found useful — I certainly did, as did other members — was that that Bill tidied up existing legislation. As you claimed, that applies to this Bill as well, as it will move existing aspects of legislation into a single Bill, which makes sense.

There are clauses on offences. During our deliberations, we asked that offences be clearly set out at the start. It would therefore help us to have a table that clearly indicates elements that are a carry-over or a replication of a law. Where elements are not new but are being reworded, we will need to see that, but new provisions in the legislation or in regulations will also need to be clearly identified at an early stage. That would help the Committee from the start, as we do not have much time left in this mandate, and we want everything to be afforded its due scrutiny. I ask you to take that on board. You may require more clarity on that, as my explanations are sometimes untidy.

Mr Lyttle: That makes sense, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. We will need a separate table that details offences, particularly new offences or any new charges that may be levied. The table should therefore indicate whether offences are new, replicated or existing so that we can identify them.

I have a couple of questions. With the Dilapidation Bill, another difficulty that arose was over not having clear definitions in the Bill. I am not sure whether there is going to be a clear definition of "aquaculture" that will enable licensing or new sectors to be created. Do you foresee any problems with providing clear definitions in the Bill? Is there any ambition to provide clear definitions? The Bill may be slightly different, in that it —.

Mr Lyttle: The Bill will contain an extensive list of definitions. Part of the weakness that we found when operating with previous legislation was that definitions have been unclear or that issues, topics and subjects have moved on. There is therefore an attempt in the draft Bill to provide clarity when it comes to definitions. That particularly applies to "aquaculture".

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. No problem. The DAERA paper that we received outlines how the Bill is intent on:

That is easy to say, but it may be harder to achieve in practice. Will it involve the consistent monitoring of fish stocks and so on? How will success be monitored? How do you see that playing out?

Mr Lyttle: Extensive data exists on large parts of the environment, including fish stocks. I acknowledge that there are gaps, and the situation with Lough Neagh has certainly highlighted where some of those gaps are. The Department is moving forward with its research and looking to expand monitoring in order to close off those gaps. For the Bill to work, we have to have the scientific data. We have a lot of it already, but it is now more about using that scientific data more effectively against primary legislation to deliver effective outcomes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): We have — correct me if I am wrong, because it would be really interesting to know — qualitative and quantitative high-level mapping of all the streams, rivers, loughs and canals across Northern Ireland. It is good to have that, but have we captured the entirety of the people who use the water? I see no reference in the papers to, for instance, hydropower. It may be missing, or it may be in there — I have not had a chance to look at the papers in depth — but I am thinking of people who do water sports and recreational users. There are also the cold water dippers. That is an activity in which a number of us are particularly interested. Everybody shares the same ambition, because we want everything to exist in an ecosystem. Will the Bill seek to encompass all those things? Does it also impact on the river basin management plan? Is work being done to ensure that all those things will be talked about at the same time in the same space?

Mr Lyttle: I will briefly address some of your queries, and I will then bring in Colin, who is very much entrenched in water policy. The Bill will not go into specifics about other water users, because other legislation deals with that. For example, there is currently a consultation out on bathing waters, seeking responses from people. It will look at the definition of "bathing waters" and who uses them. The consultation came to look at issues of public health, at bathing and at certain criteria for bathing water. Times have moved on, however. On the north coast, there are now lots of surfers and so on. People have an opportunity to provide feedback to that consultation. That issue has its own set of regulations that identify bathing waters etc and monitor public health. Colin can speak about water policy more broadly, the river basin management plan. He can tell the Committee how it all fits together.

Mr Colin Armstrong (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): You have hit on the intent of the Bill exactly. It is to make sure that fisheries policies are in total alignment with broader water policy, as provided in the river basin management plan. The draft Bill deals largely with fisheries measures and objectives, but it is about making sure that they completely complement the ecological objectives that are set in the river basin management plan, which sets out the condition in which we would like the water to be in order have those benefits for society, be they for recreation or fishing, and so that our water resources can be used sustainably. That is completely what the intent is.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I appreciate that, but we can see where different stakeholders rub up against one another. Those who are into angling would like to see work done on weirs, hydropower plants and things like that. The draft Bill is complicated and complex, but you guys and the Committee are here to try to deliver legislation that works for each and all.

Mr McAleer: Thank you very much for the presentation. I want to understand this. Am I correct in saying that the Bill has come about as a consequence of Brexit and our being removed from the common fisheries policy?

Mr Lyttle: That predates me, but updating the 1966 Act has been an aspiration for a long time. The previous time that a Bill was developed, there was not time to take it through. That was in 2016. Irrespective of EU exit, we needed to update the Fisheries Act. As we explained in our introduction, the 1966 framework was constrained and narrow. Requirements for industry and environment have simply changed, so I suggest that the Bill is required anyway.

Mr McAleer: The common fisheries policy continues to apply in the South of Ireland, because it is an EU member state. The sea around the country is one sea, so the fish do not know that they are swimming between different jurisdictions. The ecosystems are interconnected. How will the Bill align with the common fisheries policy to ensure proper, holistic management?

Mr Lyttle: As I highlighted upfront, the Bill is very much about bringing an inland fisheries framework up to date and bringing consistency to other elements of inland and sea fisheries. There is quite a robust policy and legislative framework for the marine environment for sea fisheries, and there are structures at international, EU and UK level to make sure that science is taken into consideration across the different fisheries areas so that the appropriate quotas are set and agreed at the EU/UK level. The Bill does not touch on or interfere with that because it is already set; it is more about bringing inland fisheries into alignment with the marine and sea fisheries side by having its own policy and principles. Other Parts of the Bill are about making sure that there is consistency in existing penalties etc.

Mr McAleer: Are Foyle and Carlingford excluded from it because they are jointly managed or because, as in the case of Foyle, there is dispute over its ownership?

Mr Lyttle: We have engaged with the Loughs Agency on that. We acknowledge that there will be a hiatus until the Foyle Fisheries Act 1952 is brought up to date, and we have engaged with the Republic of Ireland on the issue to meet people there and to look at that. This is a short mandate, and this is what we are doing with the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill, but we are well aware of the need for the next stages to engage on the Foyle and Carlingford areas. We already have close engagement on some of the inland fisheries matters anyway at the operational level, so it is just about making sure that that engagement continues, which it will, and that we manage any short-term differences and work with our colleagues in the Loughs Agency and the Republic of Ireland to take forward new, amended legislation.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Before I move on to John, I have a question about the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI). We are bringing in a scheme of regulations and fines, which is pretty much against polluters and so forth. Until SORPI is dealt with, that statutory protection is a significant barrier to the success of any future legislation. Has any work been done on the impact that SORPI had, has or will have on the efficacy of any legislation?

Mr Lyttle: I will start and then defer to Colin, who has more detail on water policy. The Minister's intent is to end that and to have a more consistent and fair regime for everybody so that anybody breaching a regulation or law is dealt with in the same manner as anybody else. That is being considered at Executive level. Do you have anything to add, Colin?

Mr Armstrong: No, I have nothing further on that.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Has the Minister received any up-to-date information from the Department for Infrastructure or the Minister there on the intention for the Departments to work collegiately on a satisfactory outcome to ensure that everybody is treated equally, including statutory agencies?

Mr Lyttle: More broadly, there is engagement at ministerial level. In fact, following the Gravey review, there will be engagement soon to understand what the implications etc of that will be. There is close engagement between officials and Ministers on it, because there is a recognition that certain parts of society are contributing to the degradation of our water resources. Waste water is one of those areas, and there is an issue with the budget that has been committed to address that. The Minister has put it on record that he is supportive of the Minister for Infrastructure's addressing those issues. If we are going to address water quality, waste water will have to be looked at because, if we do not have sound water quality, that will impact our fisheries, shellfish, aquaculture —

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): And public health, in the long run.

Mr Lyttle: — and public health.

Mr Blair: Thanks to you all for being here to present on the Bill. I should probably declare an interest in that I feel an emotional attachment to the 1966 Act, only because —.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Was it enacted on your birthday?

Mr Blair: No. It is only because we were born in the same year. It is not for any other reason, of course.

It strikes me that the 1966 Act either included or was amended to include a provision saying that "the Department may promote angling" and:

Those were for public use, and there is a provision now for around 90 waters. Members will know some of those from their constituencies. Where will all that fit into the new Act? I could not see it in the draft.

Mr Lyttle: Alison, do you want to give an update on that?

Ms Alison McCaw (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): None of those words in the 1966 Act are being amended by the new Act. They will remain.

Mr Blair: They will remain.

Ms McCaw: The duties of the Department will remain unchanged.

Mr Blair: I have never held back on my feelings about the importance of public engagement in certain business areas of DAERA, especially fisheries and forestry. I remain concerned and have expressed my concern about the seeming disappearance of public engagement during the COVID period. Where would public engagement sit with the focus on the environment that there will be on fisheries and the protection of habitats and all that? Will additional policy work be done to secure public engagement and education and whatever buy-in we can get from the public in order to protect what we have?

Mr Lyttle: First, there has been extensive engagement and co-design in the development of the Bill, and we continue to do that work. Secondly, the concurrent work that we are doing in the Department on the public angling estate involves co-design. We have significant engagement with a broad range of stakeholders, including anglers and people from the environment bodies etc about how we take forward a modern, accessible public angling estate.

Work has also been done internally in the Department that has come from lessons that have been learned from Lough Neagh and other water quality issues. We have cohered policy in one division, so water policy has now moved to my division, and Colin leads on that with a team, which is taking forward the fourth river basin management plan. That will bring in stakeholders. Other plans will sit with that river basin management plan, so we will be looking shellfish plans and fisheries etc. More of a silo approach was taken before, therefore, there was a focus on one issue. As I mentioned, this is about having a more ecosystem-based integrated approach, because if we do not have a healthy environment, we are not going to have healthy fish stocks. If we get this right, deliver the legislation and see improvements in the future, that should be of benefit to the angler, because they will see better fish stocks. Colin, do you have anything to add on the river basin management plan?

Mr Armstrong: There is ongoing engagement, and more engagement will be planned. We had stakeholder workshops last week, and further workshops will be planned to develop the plan as we go through the remainder of this year. They will include representatives from angling.

Mr Lyttle: I will add one thing. The culture has changed. Policies across marine, fisheries and other parts of the Department are very much centred on co-design. Everything in the main marine strategies, which you might have seen go through different consultations recently, was predicated on co-design. The Bill is no exception. It means that we have stakeholder engagement early on.

Miss McIlveen: I was going to ask the same question as John about where the promotion of angling sits in the new Bill vis-à-vis the 1966 Act. I am a little bit confused about the status of the 1966 Act.

Ms McCaw: The Bill creates some stand-alone provision, but it also makes amendments to the 1966 Act. Large parts of the 1966 Act will remain. We have identified areas, which we would remove, if we had time, that are no longer used or no longer reflect today's practices. They are not in the Bill. The Bill provides stand-alone provision and makes the stated amendments to the Act in order to facilitate those changes.

Miss McIlveen: We need a little bit more clarity on that and on how the new Bill will sit alongside the 1966 Act, given that the policy objective of the 1966 Act is very different from what you are proposing here.

Ms McCaw: We have assessed how the 1966 Act will look once the legislation comes into effect. If it is helpful, we can provide that to show you the proposed changes to the 1966 Act.

Miss McIlveen: OK. It would be really helpful for us to have that in advance of the Second Stage.

Mr Wilson: The Minister's letter to the Chair talks about how:

On the flexibility aspect, the words "flexible" and "regulatory" do not really sit too well in the same sentence. What weight do you give to that element of flexibility? Is it more about having a flexible approach to the co-design process, which was discussed, and stakeholder buy-in, or is it about taking a real-time approach to a situation as opposed to a heavy-handed regulatory approach? I am just keen to understand what that means.

Mr Lyttle: When conducting investigations, regulators in DAERA have to follow the DAERA enforcement policy, which is a proportionate and escalatory mechanism. However, when you look at the primary legislation, you see that offences go straight to the Magistrates' Court etc. The Bill provides an extra level of penalties through fixed penalty notices, which do not criminalise people. That means that lower-level events could be dealt with without having to resort to going to court. There will be a bit more flexibility in applying the enforcement policy. We will now have the escalatory tools to be able to address different levels of harm to the environment.

We are not, therefore, using a sledgehammer to crack a small nut all the time. The Bill lays out the enforcement toolkit that we will provide, but, underneath that, there is still advice, education and warning. It is still escalatory against the policy, and that will be determined by the individual components of a case.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you for your presentation this morning. Have you had, or do you plan to have, any engagement with hydropower operators? Where will hydropower sit in the Bill? We know that hydropower is in the 1966 Act, but where will it fit going forward?

Mr Lyttle: I will defer to Alison, who did a lot of the engagement during the development of the Bill, and then, Colin, you can come in on the policy that relates to that.

Ms McCaw: I met hydropower operators on a couple of occasions during the policy development. The Bill does not make any changes to the sections of the 1966 Act in which they are discussed, nominally sections 54, 58 and 59. The Bill does not propose any changes to the requirements in those sections. We have had wider discussions with the operators about their input to river basin management planning and energy power. I hope that those discussions will continue. It certainly would be beneficial.

Mr Armstrong: I had some direct conversations last week with representatives from the British Hydropower Association at a river basin planning workshop that we held. We discussed the nature of the challenge that they can see. The best way to describe it is that the Fisheries Act 1966 takes a purely fisheries perspective on things rather than looking at hydropower as an alternative user of our water resource.

Through our river basin management planning process, we can look at balancing the activities on our watercourses with how we want to use our water resources and decide the approaches and controls etc that need to be there. Aligning fisheries management with river basin planning allows us to look at stretches of river and to start to take decisions about the sustainable use of that water resource and to try to mitigate any adverse effects yet still provide for sustainable use through things such as hydropower, which may provide opportunities for small-scale renewable energy. We had a very good discussion with those representatives. More work needs to be done, but we will certainly do that.

Mr T Buchanan: Will those discussions be ongoing?

Mr Armstrong: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): No one online has any questions, so thank you very much for your attendance. We will hear from you in due course. Having made your acquaintance, we will get to be friends over the next few months.

Mr Lyttle: I think that that will be the case, Chair. Thanks very much.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you so much.