Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): The witnesses today are attending via Zoom. We have David Nelson, secretary of the Foyle Association of Salmon and Trout Anglers (FASTA), and Colin Duncan, Brendan Winters and Alex Boyd, who are all members of FASTA. Good morning, panel. Welcome to the Committee this morning, and thank you for attending. Please go ahead and brief the Committee.

Mr David Nelson (Foyle Association of Salmon and Trout Anglers): Our first point is about public safety. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency's (NIEA) 'Significant Water Management Issues' consultation document argues:

We welcome the Environment Minister's words on the current river basin management plan. The fourth cycle plan must be ambitious and address the challenges that Northern Ireland faces from the decline in water quality. The reality is that, in Northern Ireland, between 2020 and 2024, an average of 804 substantiated water pollution incidents were recorded each year. A Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) report on Northern Ireland environmental statistics for 2025 showed 1,780 substantiated water pollution incidents, which is a 100% rise. Of those 1,780 incidents, 46% were considered to have had a negative impact, which automatically implies that 54% of them had the opposite effect — in other words, they had an impact.

This is about the water that we drink, the water that we swim in and the water that we eat our produce from. There are impacts on the local community, including an unacceptable, pungent smell arising from green energy initiatives. We have concerns about offshore salmon cage farms: as a group, we strongly object to the Bill's opening the door to that business model. We demand that, if something were to occur on the blind side, there would be robust application processes and a proper, proportionate balance struck between real gain and real community loss relating to salmon farming. The Scottish model is an example of significant failure and threats to the ecosystem.

On penalties and enforcement, we ask for a full culture change, in that the polluter must pay a penalty. There should be full cost restitution, including habitat and environmental replacement and rehabilitation. Persistent offenders should automatically face suspension and revocation of operation licences or discharge permits. Government facilities should have no variation on those control strategies.

If fixed penalties are implemented, they must be within a strict framework of use and a matrix application policy.
The significant disparity between pollution incident penalties in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is an issue. If there is going to be effective enforcement, there needs to be alignment. Cross-border investigation implications and that lack of alignment will significantly reduce the effectiveness of any investigation and criminal justice outcome. Courts in Northern Ireland must have the legal framework to have serious pollution incidents appropriately dealt with by way of indictment and therefore, potentially, jail sentences.

With regard to the previous point, that raises the concern that the proposal of a £50,000 fine ceiling has not been scaled out properly. The current inadequate penalties based on our legal framework are no longer fit for purpose, so we must future-proof those penalties and legal frameworks for many decades to come. Given the age of the current processes, they are running decades out of alignment.

The planning application process investigation must be a critical controlling point. Green energy applications must evidence soil, air and water quality. That will allow for constant monitoring, if the application is approved, for evidence of degrading and remedies via controlled oversight. On-site independent monitoring and testing should be an option for government agencies that are investigating.

With regard to electronic monitoring and telemetry installation by the applicant as part of the application or cost of the application, that information collection is part of the approval and must be made available on demand by the government agency investigating or undertaking an inspection. Failure to implement or comply would draw down penalties.

The unscheduled inspections option must be without prior notification at areas and sites identified as high risk by the authorities, including at any time of the day or year. Authorities with full power access to data and site buildings must be standard. Failure to comply would be an automatic offence.

A multi-agency investigation approach must be adopted in serious and cross-border pollution incidents. Skills and expertise in the legal framework are imperative, and lessons must be implemented from the River Blackwater pollution incident in County Cork. The recommendation that the appointment of a senior investigating officer who has skills and experience is critical. Indeed, that officer should be appointed from a senior government body. That will allow for accountability.

There are weaknesses in the pollution incident reporting services in terms of appropriate resource tasking in a timely fashion. Salmon and trout spawning beds in rivers are identified at risk by the government conservation body in Northern Ireland. FASTA supports the farming community in its desire and need for greater and more resilient ability to deal with greater amounts of slurry. We balance those needs with better planning, fit-for-purpose architecture and security around those arrangements. Without that considered approach by government, it is inevitable that pollution incidents will occur again. The ramifications of not having a common-sense approach to slurry security are well known to all in our group. Thank you, Committee.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much, David. That was very informative. You referred to the significant disparity between the incidence of pollution in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. Will you take us through what you see as the main differences and explain how those affect deterrence and penalties? The financial penalties seem to be significantly higher in the Republic of Ireland.

Mr Nelson: May I refer that question to another delegate from my group who —?

Mr Colin Duncan (Foyle Association of Salmon and Trout Anglers): I will take that one, David, if you do not mind.

Mr Nelson: OK, Colin.

Mr Duncan: Good morning, Committee. You are right, Chair. We welcome the Minister's Bill, which contains a lot of well-intentioned proposals to change the law, but, whilst the maximum fine of £50,000 is proposed in order to bring us into line with the monetary fines used in the rest of the UK, there is no upper limit on the fine that the Crown Court in the UK may impose for a pollution incident, so the fine is unlimited. To answer your specific question, the Republic of Ireland's courts, in summary proceedings, may impose a fine of up to €3,000. In its higher courts, the maximum is €15 million, and there can be a sentence of up to 10 years' imprisonment. In the Bill, the upper end of the scale is £50,000, with between two years' and six years' imprisonment for different offences. We are still well behind the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the UK when it comes to the upper echelons of the fine systems.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you. If pollution that occurred in Northern Ireland were to cross the border — in the Foyle system, for example — what could the Loughs Agency do? What role would it play?

Mr Nelson: In the absence of anyone else speaking to that, I will answer. The Loughs Agency is a cross-border investigative body. In our experience, its difficulty has been in resourcing. Its team has limited numbers, although it has a scientific support group. It is one of the few elements of the Good Friday Agreement that involves cross-border application of government resources. Another difficulty that the Loughs Agency has is that the legislative framework that it and other bodies use in their investigative work is weaker than that used elsewhere. The Loughs Agency has, in Mr Seamus Cullinan, the head of its environment department, probably one of the most skilled and knowledgeable of all investigators, but that weakness means that Seamus's filings in the courts in Northern Ireland have less impact. The Meenbog peat slide several years ago on the Derg river is an excellent example. The incident happened in the Republic of Ireland, but the outworking of the pollution occurred in Northern Ireland. The disparity seriously inhibits the ability of the Loughs Agency to undertake an effective and efficient investigation.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you, David. You talked about some measures, but what further powers are needed in the Bill to make sure that incidents are identified, investigated and addressed quickly? I am aware —.

Mr Nelson: We have to give the investigator full powers of entry and access and make sure that those powers are cross-border. I do not know whether such things can fall under the Schengen Agreement or where they naturally sit, but, because the Loughs Agency is a cross-border body, it must be legislated for in the context of any new framework. It is ineffective, not because of its inputs — it works hard — but because the legal process is failing the Loughs Agency.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): OK. Thank you very much. I will open it up to members for more questions from the Committee.

Mr T Buchanan: Welcome to the Committee, and thank you for your presentation. David, you spoke about the smell from green energy initiatives. I know something about that from my constituency. Those green energy initiatives or developments are partly funded by the Department. What needs to be done to curb or bring them into line so that we do not have the Department funding a green energy initiative that is polluting a river?

Mr Nelson: Colin, would you like to take that question?

Mr Duncan: FASTA has been working closely with a number of local renewable businesses. We felt that that filled a void between the government role and the public role, and that worked quite well. We created good working relationships with a number of renewable energy businesses that are now taking rivers more seriously. They are taking steps to ensure that they are more measured in their approach to the waste that comes out of their factories and business premises. A lot of positive work has been going on in the background on that but, of course, more could be done. We have to protect the spawning beds of the Atlantic salmon before it becomes an extinct species.

Mr Nelson: With regard to investigative powers, a great standard has been set by the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) in relation to inspection of businesses that deliver care, for example, or private healthcare. Agencies with the power to investigate do so without prior notification, and they have powers of entry. By "powers of entry" I mean that those running the business must deal with them when they arrive; there is no prior notification.

With regard to instances of bad smell, we need inspectors who can be given information about where a smell is emanating from and can doorstep people and carry out their investigation. I am not saying that advice and direction cannot be given, but that is where the issue can be safely established. If a problem is serious, it must be referred back to the Department that dealt with the application. That is when mitigation must be implemented to reduce any threat of further contamination in the community from the smell. That is where there is a weakness. There are Departments to which applications are made and Departments that oversee those matters, and the difficulty is communication. Those Departments are operating in silos, and there is a lack of communication.

Tom, thanks for your question, but you know the amount of research that we have done locally on that. The lack of connectivity and communication between Departments is one of the greatest failures that I have seen.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you for your presentation. You said in your briefing that the legislation may open the door for offshore salmon cage farms, which, obviously, you object to. Will you talk us through that?

Mr Brendan Winters (Foyle Association of Salmon and Trout Anglers): If the go-ahead is given for salmon cages to be reintroduced in our estuaries, or close to where the estuaries go into the sea, the worry is that parasites, sea lice and other pathogens that may result from the industrialised process of fish farming will have an effect on migrating salmon smolts going outwards and fish returning to our rivers.

The biggest threat to our outgoing smolts, which are very small, is the fact that they are very susceptible to infection. They can be infected by large amounts of sea lice, and that has caused a huge increase in mortality. Over the past 40 years, we have seen a huge decline in the percentage of salmon smolts that return to our rivers. It has gone from 30% to as little as 2%. There has been a correlation drawn between that and cages in our estuaries. Anything that promotes the possibility of reintroducing more salmon cages on our coastline would be detrimental to the salmon population. We would not want to see such a thing happen.

Miss McIlveen: You have evidence in relation to —?

Mr Winters: There is clear evidence on that. It has been studied. There is literature from the North and South, because the Governments asked particular scientists to look at the issue. I am not able to quote it off the top of my head, but there is evidence to suggest that there is a large effect on salmon mortality, especially smolt mortality.

Tom mentioned methane. Methane and ammonia are greenhouse gases. When it comes to the idea that water and air quality should be affected by green energy —. David talked about inspection. There is the suggestion of gas leakage. If those plants are meant to produce green or renewable energy, inspection is really important, because, if those greenhouse gases escape, any benefits from renewable energy will be lost because of the release of methane and ammonia gas into the air. Again, that offsets any possible benefits from the process to mitigate greenhouse gases.

Mr Nelson: I will add to that a point that I forgot to mention. Applications are running ahead of government's ability to manage their outworkings. In other words, approvals are being made, but Departments do not have the resources to properly and effectively manage the outworkings.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): To be clear, David, are you referring to those applications for offshore salmon cages?

Mr Nelson: No, sorry. I am following on from Brendan's point. The applications are for inshore green energy initiatives. The applications are being made and approved. They are being loaded on to Departments that have a separate responsibility for inspection. Based on my information, those government bodies are not capable of managing what they currently have, never mind what comes from future applications. In other words, they are getting ahead of themselves when it comes to public safety.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you for clarifying that, David.

Mr Blair: I thank all of you for your presentation. I ask for more information on the cross-border enforcement issues that you mentioned. My understanding is that the Loughs Agency, as a cross-border body that covers the Foyle and Carlingford catchment areas, should have had easier access to cross-border, joined-up working than others, such as DAERA, which covers the rest of the border area. Surely it should be easier for one body to work on both sides of the border. We have two Departments, which are completely distinct bodies, working in other border areas — I am not saying that they cannot or should not do it, by the way; quite the reverse — and need to join up, but a single body — the Loughs Agency — covers the Foyle and Carlingford catchment areas. Are you saying that there are problems with the cross-border aspects of that? If so, what are the main challenges?

Mr Nelson: John, thanks for your question. There are a lot of aspects to it. Aspirationally, what you are saying could diagnose and resolve the problem. In real time, however, the Loughs Agency does not have the resources to undertake the function that it has in the north-west and down through Carlingford lough, given the hectares of water that it has to manage, including 12 miles offshore of Northern Ireland. It just does not have the resources. Our relationships with the CEO of the Loughs Agency and the conservation people are good, but they are completely overwhelmed with work. They do not have the resource.

When it comes to their investigation, their skill level, particularly that of Seamus Cullinan, who is a very experienced fisheries officer, is high, but the difficulty is the outworkings from it and the regulations that they are working within to bring offenders to account for their actions. In my humble opinion, that is where work needs to be undertaken so that standards are brought up between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland via that one cross-border body with cross-border powers. We should make that body fit for purpose and give it the tools to do its job or re-prioritise its tasks from that multilayered function into specific areas so that it becomes professional — or more professional — and

in a different way. That disparity between North and South is the Loughs Agency's greatest problem. That is the feedback that we got from speaking to various fisheries officers and levels of management.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much, David.

John, do you have any follow-up question?

Mr Blair: No.

David, thank you. It is helpful that you have clarified that it is more of a resource issue than a structural one that we are dealing with. I fully accept that. You have explained that well.

May I ask you about the separate issue of pollution, whatever its source? It has been well established that DAERA's first action in pollution incidents and in other matters for which it is responsible is to seek compliance from the polluter or, in other cases, the offender or alleged offender. Do you agree that the Department, whatever the source of the pollution, should move to legal recourse more quickly than it currently does in most instances?

Mr Duncan: I am not sure that it does that in most cases. From 2020 to 2024, there were over 4,000 substantiated cases of pollution but only 68 fines imposed.

Mr Blair: Yes, that is what I mean.

Mr Duncan: That is only 1·6%.

Mr Blair: That is what I am saying, Colin: should there be quicker action on the legal front rather than trying to work with people to get compliance?

Mr Duncan: Yes. I think that the Minister's proposal sets it out well, particularly with the implementation of the fixed penalty notices, that the Department does not want to criminalise potential first-time polluters — farmers, probably, and those in the agriculture sector who work hard to provide us with our food and employment in rural areas. Therefore, I think that there will be positive signs on the fixed penalty notices. Every case has to be taken on its merits. If it can be dealt with without criminalising hard-working people, that is fantastic. However, the thing about the Bill is that it does not set out whether the fixed penalty system can be used for repeat offenders — basically, whether it can be an easy way out for repeat offenders. We would be concerned about that.

There is little action to take people to court here over pollution incidents. That brings me back to David's point: if we introduce more work with more fixed penalty notices to be issued, which means more riverbank patrolling, the Loughs Agency will not have the staff. That is just the reality of the situation. It is almost ineffective as it is. If you give it more work to do to issue fixed penalty tickets etc, there will be nobody there to write the dockets.

Mr Blair: Thank you for that. We are back to the issue of resources there, and I note that, Colin.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you for that. I go back to what you said, David. The Department for the Economy is responsible for renewable energy and energy initiatives, and I think that we as a Committee will write to that Department to seek an understanding of how it is monitoring what is happening with potential leakage offshore, the potential impact of that, what its terms of reference are and how the Department monitors and inspects it. Is the Committee content to write to the Department?

Mr Blair: I do not disagree, but can we add to that —?

Mr Nelson: May I add one point to that? Applications are made to Departments. The question that must be asked is this: how effectively do the Departments consult other bodies that have to drop work to fulfil requirements to protect the environment? On many occasions, that is where the disparity arises. The Department that authorises the application is completely different from the Department that enforces it. There is a significant disconnect between the Departments on what is approved and what ability can be applied to managing those new tasks.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We will certainly write to the Department to address that matter.

Mr Blair: I have no issue with seeking that information on cross-departmental responsibilities. In doing so, can we get the information on the source of pollution in the Loughs Agency's area so that we have a clearer picture of the entirety of the pollution picture? That can be done through DAERA or requested directly from the Loughs Agency. Where NIEA is involved, it might have to go through DAERA. That is to get the overall picture on the source of all pollution in that area so that we know what we are dealing with.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Are members content?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We will certainly do that.

Members have no more questions for the panel, and, with that, I thank you, unless you have any closing comments, David.

Mr Nelson: Thank you very much, Committee, for taking the time to listen to us. We consider these to be very important matters, and we reinforce to you the point that any new legislation must be fit for purpose for the future. By "the future", we mean decades, given the Fisheries Act that was passed in the 1950s. These matters have been entirely overlooked, so any new legislative improvements have to be thought through and future-proofed to take account of where we are going with threats to the environment.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much to all of you for being here this morning. That has been really helpful. I wish you good morning. Thank you for joining us.