Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We are joined this morning by the following Ulster Angling Federation representatives: Jim Haughey MBE, chairman; Mr Ray McKeeman, director; and Mr David Thompson, club development officer. You are very welcome. We have received a briefing from you. If you would like to take us through a summary of that this morning, we will then open up for some questions. Thank you.

Mr Jim Haughey (Ulster Angling Federation): Chair, I will give an overall picture of the situation. I thank you for inviting us to give evidence. The federation is the recognised government body for angling in Northern Ireland and represents angling clubs and anglers across different disciplines: coarse angling, sea angling, game angling and so forth. We support our members through development, political and environment issues, conservation, coaching and safeguarding. We support the Bill in principle. Our concern is about what it will deliver for our waters, fish populations and angling. The Bill has many laudable objectives and is full of good intentions. In fact, about the only thing that it is missing is motherhood and apple pie, but maybe that will come in an amendment. The new approach is based on one of the UK Acts in a similar vein, but the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 was widely recognised as being many decades ahead of its time. On many occasions, fishery officers from other parts of the UK have indicated to me that they wished that they had the 1966 Act, because it was so good and so powerful.

We ask the Committee to consider four practical improvements, which we have listed in our paper. First, there should be a clear recovery response after serious harm, such as fish kills and so forth. Secondly, fish passage and habitat protection should be made essential and effective. Thirdly, licensing should be made clear and proportionate. Fourthly, delivery should be given a timetable and the necessary resources.

The protection of water environment consultation contains the following quote from DAERA:

I will just repeat that:

However, Northern Ireland Water cannot be prosecuted into compliance or stopping sewage discharges. In fact, if Northern Ireland Water is fined, the Assembly is fining itself, which is a circular motion. The only solution to that is funding, which the Assembly is responsible for. There is little point in saying on the one hand, "We're going to do x, y and z", if, on the other hand, the necessary action is not taken to give resources to Northern Ireland Water to stop the problems that it has.

There is a concern that aquaculture may raise its head with us. The analysis and summary of the consultation responses, under "Aquaculture Licensing", states that there was a:

That rang an alarm bell with us that we need to have good control over marine-based aquaculture because what we do not want under any circumstances is any extension of salmon farming, due to the horrendous problems that that is causing elsewhere. We are concerned that that should not mean opening the door to having more salmon farms in Northern Ireland.

One of the big issues for fisheries in Northern Ireland is barriers. Under the water framework directive, there should have been quite a bit of work done to address those barriers. I think that different bits of work identified something crazy like 1,000 barriers to fish passage on rivers in Northern Ireland. Only recently, there was a severe problem on the River Shimna in Newcastle with a barrier and a fish pass. It seems to be extremely difficult for the local angling club to get that sorted out, and in the meantime there is a significant barrier to fish passage. The other issue with barriers is in relation to hydroelectric schemes, which we remain extremely concerned about, as people who are involved in fisheries but also simply as citizens. The cost of the infrastructure needed to administer hydroelectric schemes — licensing, monitoring, consultations, looking at problems and so forth — must be heading towards £1 million per year or perhaps even more. I will give you some facts and figures. Hydroelectricity accounts for 1% of renewable electricity in Northern Ireland. Renewables are responsible for roughly half of Northern Ireland's electricity, so hydroelectricity is providing one half of 1% of Northern Ireland's total electricity. The electricity supply sector is responsible for 10% of Northern Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions, which means that hydroelectricity is saving approximately 0·05% of Northern Ireland's greenhouse gas emissions. That is one half of one thousandth — one half of one thousandth — of Northern Ireland greenhouse gas emissions, yet we are putting at risk our fish passage and salmon numbers, which are way down. Effectively, a large number of people who are not well off are being asked to pay a very small number of hydroelectric operators significant amounts of money. It has been put to me that receiving a licence for a hydroelectric scheme is, in fact, a licence to print money. I do not know whether it is or not, but there seems to be some truth in that, so we are very concerned about that.

The water framework directive as was under the European Union made us produce river basin management plans, which were produced by DAERA and its forerunner Departments. They promised much but, in point of fact, did not deliver a great deal. Every time a new river basin management plan was published, all the environmental bodies told DAERA, "It is a management plan with actions", but the plan did not encompass any real actions. We did not expect anything of them, and not a huge amount was achieved.

Stand back and look at the broad picture at the minute. This is a fisheries and water environment Bill, so look at what is happening in the fisheries sector. The situation with salmon and eels is not good. Salmon are at a very low ebb, and the eels are in a terrible state. The trout populations are variable, and, because of fish kills, there are some big gaps. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) 2024 classification placed only 29% of river waterbodies at "good" or "high" status. In July, the BBC reported that more than 50,000 fish had been killed in 65 pollution incidents over a five-year period. Although those are one-off, isolated incidents, they build and build and add up. On the water side, you only have to look at Lough Neagh to know that the water environment is not good. That is not only the case in Lough Neagh; many small lakes in Northern Ireland suffer from the same problems. Lough Neagh is an indicator of what is happening across the Province; it is not an isolated situation. The downstream flow from that is where we get incidents of algae in the sea off the north coast, where the Bann and the Foyle discharge. In the past, there were some very good intentions. One of the problems that we have seen in the past is the get-out clause. In many cases, there were very good intentions, but there always seemed to be a get-out clause whereby people were able to avoid having to do what really needed to be done.

Looking to the future, we repeat that the Bill is quite welcome and that we look forward to it making a difference, but the fact remains that tinkering around the edges will not do it, Madam Chairman. We need something that will give us a step change. As I said, Lough Neagh is an indicator, and a bit of an adjustment here and a bit of an adjustment there will not really do it. If Northern Ireland Water continues to be starved of the necessary funding, we will not address our problems. We need to have an assurance from the Assembly that this Bill will produce the step change that is needed. Can you guys around the table convince us of that, please? Thank you very much for your time.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much. I will open on that point. In your experience, over what period of time have you seen the greatest decline in fish stocks?

Mr Haughey: Say that again, sorry?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Over what period of time have you seen the biggest decline in fish stocks? Is it over the past 10 years? Is it longer? Does something seem to have triggered it more?

Mr Haughey: In the past 10 or 12 years, we have seen a marked decline in salmon; there is no question about that. The situation with eels is not far removed from that. It is very difficult to be precise about that sort of thing, but the last 10 to 15 years have seen a decline. Again, I refer to the succession of river basin management plans that were produced but, to be frank, did not really do the business.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you for that. You have proposed a statutory recovery duty following significant fish kills. Can you provide examples of where enforcement action concluded but local angling clubs were left without clarity on the long-term recovery of fish to rebuild the stocks in the rivers?

Mr Haughey: My colleague will answer that one.

Mr David Thompson (Ulster Angling Federation): Thank you for your question. It seems to be quite regular that clubs come to me and say that, once the fish kill has happened and they have determined the source of the pollution — [Interruption.]

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): That is just the call to the Chamber.

Mr Thompson: That is OK. Even when they have mitigated that — [Interruption.]

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): That will stop now.

Mr Thompson: That is OK. After a prosecution, and once the source has been determined, it is all quiet on the Western Front. There is no follow-up. The clubs are left to their own devices, using their own finance and resource, to help the river recover after a fish kill. I would love to give specifics, but I am aware that I am not able to name certain sites, because that could impact on judicial proceedings against polluters. I have to be very mindful of that. However, I have a long list of clubs that could testify that, in their case, as soon as the source is determined and the prosecutions take place, it stops.

If they cannot determine who the polluter is, it is nearly exactly the same scenario: there is no preventative measure, but the club still foots the cost. There is a misconception, certainly among the general public, that Movanagher is used to replenish fry in those rivers in order to help them recover. That is certainly not the case. Since around 2016 or 2017, the rivers have been left to recover naturally. For the benefit of the Committee, it is not a one-year process; it can take between five and seven years to get another succession of good, mature spawning fish. That is to the detriment of the clubs and communities that depend on those watercourses, not just for angling but for education. What we have seen is that, in the past couple of years, clubs have transitioned from being just angling clubs to community hubs. They are used for education and skills development, and certainly that is in line with the funding. To answer your question about fish kills, it is very much —.

Mr Haughey: Across the board.

Mr Thompson: Yes. It is just stopped.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you. Should serious pollution incidents and significant fish kills be explicitly excluded from being dealt with through a fixed penalty notice and treated in a different way?

Mr Thompson: Yes, I believe that they should be, the reason being that a fixed penalty notice can be capped at a small fine where a large pollution incident can be dealt with under a fixed penalty notice at the expense —. I give the example of someone who has a fish kill. If it is more localised — maybe 20 fish — he could be fined the same as someone who has killed thousands of fish. The punishment has to fit the crime. It should not be a fixed penalty notice. It could be seen as a way of saying, "We have dealt with that", but it is not proportionate to the crime.

Mr Ray McKeeman (Ulster Angling Federation): Another anecdotal example relates to repeat offenders. I am mindful of an instance in the past 10 years where it was easier for a construction firm to allow daily discharge into the local river and pay the cost — whatever that was — than to accommodate the discharge in an environmentally friendly way. We talk about what is a major pollution incident. A major pollution incident is identified not only by the number of fish that die — it may only be one fish that dies, but the habitat can be destroyed. On the scientific assessment of a pollution incident, it may kill only one fish, but there could be a significant impact on the river.

Mr McAleer: Thank you very much for your presentation. You mentioned that there are as many as a thousand barriers to fish passage here, and you gave the example of Shimna. Can you give me an idea of the barriers we are talking about? Is it private ownership, or who owns them? Should stronger enforcement be inserted in the Bill to remove these impediments?

Mr Haughey: You need to go back to first base. First, the barriers can take a number of different forms. A lot of barriers were put in to work very small local mills in the past, which took very little water out of the river, and they have fallen into disuse over the years, but the barriers remain. There are other barriers that you might not be aware of. For example, if there is a bridge over a river, very often there is a sill across the river underneath the bridge, and that can be quite a severe barrier to fish passage. It is difficult to do anything about the sill simply because of the risk of undermining the bridge. We are faced with the situation that we are strengthening barriers, and even introducing some new ones for hydroelectric schemes, when we are supposed to be removing barriers to fish passage. At this stage, it is probably premature to put something in the Bill to say we need to remove all barriers. We need to take the first few steps along that line and see what is feasible, what is not feasible, what is desirable and what is not desirable, and start along that journey. It is a bit early to talk about removing all barriers.

Mr Thompson: I will come in on what Jim has said. We are not asking for an automatic removal. Each barrier will need to be assessed on its heritage, ecological impact, flood risk and engineering. I attended a consultation with DFI in Antrim recently — you are well aware of the issues in the Riverside area over the past year. Any allocation of barrier removal needs to focus on the design of what is currently there. It goes back to the ownership, and that is an issue with a lot of barriers, particularly on the Shimna, which Jim raised earlier. There has been inaction on that fish pass and barrier, and it has fallen into a bad state of disrepair because nobody can determine its ownership. That happens. I have been speaking to departmental officials over the past year, and there are straightforward barriers that are owned by one person, and some barriers are owned by upwards of 20 people. There could be a scenario where you cannot find the owner and we cannot do anything. An important part of the Bill should be the point at which you can intervene to promote fish passage when it gets to that stage. You have to look at the legal powers that can be put in the Bill to allow an intervention. There are interventions for fish that can be brought in using the precautionary approach or precautionary principle in other aspects of fishery management, but could it apply here where we have fish stuck in an important spawning river at an important time of the year, and we have no powers to move them upstream because we cannot determine who owns the barrier? These are just little things that we encounter, and unfortunately, if you pull the wool, you might find a lot more in the same scenario.

Mr McAleer: One more wee thing. You mentioned your aversion to the various hydro schemes. Last week, we received evidence about mills. There used to be 6,500 mills here, and there are now only around 60. We have lost 3,500 miles of mill races, which could have been positive for aquaculture and fish habitat. Is there any version of hydro schemes that merit consideration at all?

Mr Haughey: Possibly, but a lot of it depends on applying parameters to the water abstraction that, to date, the Environment Agency has refused to consider. At the minute, if a hydroelectric scheme is in operation, it has to allow a minimum flow in the river.

Once that minimum flow is achieved, if it is maintained and if there is water available above that minimum flow, the hydroelectric operator can take that water.

However, some of the depleted stretches of river are fairly considerable, and the passage of fish upstream can be seriously interrupted. If a fish is travelling upstream because there is good water and thinks, "Great, there is a bit of a flood here, I can go upstream", but then hits a half-mile section of the river where, all of a sudden, there is a bare minimum flow, the fish thinks, "Oh crikey, what happened? The flood is gone; I will just stay here". There can be interruption in flow.

A number of the major angling organisations have supported some of the research papers that say that instead of allowing a bare minimum flow and taking the excess, the abstraction should be on a proportional basis, so that you keep a bare minimum and, if there is an excess, you take a proportion of that excess, but not all of it. We would like to see that introduced, and we have proposed that over many years. To date, however, the Environment Agency has refused to countenance that. There are possibilities in that line in relation to the parameters of regulation that could greatly improve the situation with regard to abstractions.

Mr McAleer: Thank you very much.

Mr Thompson: May I come in on that? In our written evidence, as an example, we submitted a published report of proceedings in Aghadowey from 5 January 2024 that recorded a guilty finding for a failure to maintain a fish pass. Following on from the point that was just made there, however, the court was told that the inspection found that a diversion to a turbine had left 600 metres of river without flow, which made it impassable for fish. For us, that is an example of non-compliance. We have spoken about the impact, but we need to see a level of transparency around compliance. There have been Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) issues with inspections; we raised those in our written submission. We would like to see the latest inspection and determination results, outstanding cases and completion dates in order to see how those tie in. Transparency and ongoing monitoring, as well as compliance, are major issues for us. There are similar issues at another site at Crumlin. Those arrangements can work, providing there is adequate fish passage, but compliance and transparency are key. We are finding that clubs and members are losing water and not knowing why. There has to be some sort of input into the process.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Does your organisation speak to any of the hydroelectric producers or the mill owners?

Mr Thompson: Not directly; only via our clubs.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): In terms of understanding?

Mr Thompson: Jim can speak about that.

Mr Haughey: The positions are well-established over many years. The hydropower association's view is that the situation at present is perfectly acceptable, which we disagree with greatly.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you for that. Do members have any further questions?

Mr Blair: Thanks to all of you; I had another meeting at 9.45 am, so I apologise for being slightly late. A number of matters that I wanted to raise have already been covered, but having gone through your report again, I want to ask you about a couple of issues, most of which revolve around the health of the river. The first of those is consultation on hydro applications or other similar developments. Is your federation or are individual clubs consulted directly, or are you dependent on the statutory public consultation process?

Mr Haughey: As I understand it, there is no statutory public consultation process for hydroelectric schemes. It is dependent on the goodwill of the NI Environment Agency which, historically, has consulted the Ulster Angling Federation.

Mr Blair: It has done so?

Mr Haughey: Yes.

Mr Blair: OK.

Mr Haughey: I will say that the Environment Agency has consulted us, but that has not translated into accepting our views.

Mr Blair: OK. Was that consultation with NIEA directly, or with DAERA's inland fisheries branch?

Mr Haughey: It was with NIEA.

Mr Blair: My second question is about an issue on which I have engaged with at least two of you previously. I make no apologies for raising it, Chair, but I will ensure that I relate it to the presentation. It is directly related to the policing of our rivers and the care of our environment; it is on the Department's engagement with fisheries in general and the promotion of fisheries. Do you agree that an enhanced programme, either through the Bill or by any other means, from the Department to promote angling and engage with groups that are not already engaged in angling would greatly enhance the protection of our rivers through increased participation?

Mr Thompson: Yes, John. That would be really good. It needs to be considered. Given that the Department already takes ownership of the public angling estate and the current licensing measures for anglers and rod licensing, there should be some sort of tie-in with the continued promotion of angling in the Bill. As, I think, we have all said over the years, once you lose it, you do not get it back. I think that it would be beneficial if the promotion of angling were to continue, especially as the Department retains ownership and management control of the public angling estate and licensing.

Mr Blair: Will you give the Committee any indication of how that has either increased — I do not think that that is the case — or decreased over the years?

Mr Thompson: In terms of —?

Mr Blair: The engagement with the clubs individually and the promotion of angling.

Mr McKeeman: By the Department?

Mr Blair: Yes.

Mr McKeeman: I have been involved in that for 15 or 20 years. I got only a B in my English language at school, but I have learned, through this process, the crucial difference between the word "may" and the word "shall" in legislation. "Shall" imposes an obligation, whereas "may" gives the option. For many years, I was an instructor and coached children, vulnerable adults and the general public, and I brought them in. I was able to work in partnership with the DAERA inland fisheries outreach team, which did a fantastic job with a limited budget. Unfortunately, that work has completely stopped in recent years because of the use of the word "may".

I am not saying that the Department should have complete responsibility for that, but the public perception is that the bodies south of the border and across the water and, dare I say, even the Loughs Agency in our own jurisdiction are still active in outreach, promotion and development. Unfortunately, that has changed and is highlighted by what happens in the Republic of Ireland and the work that is done by the Angling Trust and others on the mainland. DAERA's absence in that regard is regrettable, and it has definitely had a large impact. It would be fantastic if it shared responsibility for that work, because it has expertise and enthusiasm that is in my view sorely missed. It would definitely be to the benefit of the well-being of the entire angling population, which has been noted by many of us.

Mr Blair: I asked that question because, apart from the plethora of issues around health, well-being, outdoors and active social interaction — you could go on and on about the societal benefits of all of those things — there is a clear link to the issue: increased participation around our lakes and rivers will increase the number of watchful eyes on them and the number of people working to make them better.

Finally, you referred to something earlier that I want to go a wee bit further on: there is a section in your report about the removal of obsolete — I think that that was the word that you used — barriers in rivers. Will you give us any further indication of the damage that is being done by weir fish passes, or whatever the barrier may be, if they are not properly maintained, or where ownership cannot be determined?

Mr Thompson: The Shimna was hitting headlines yesterday evening, and we are certainly aware of it. We get a lot of consultation directly with the guys on the ground. We are almost a PA to the Department sometimes with the amount of issues that we have to raise. That is a prime one. I have to use this terminology: the can has been kicked for a very long time on that. There have been issues with trying to determine ownership with the Department and local councillors. The tidal stretch got a lot of press over the summer. I think that there was decaying seaweed, which caused a foul smell throughout the town. That made the press, which raised awareness again. Although we depend on it for fish passage, it is now becoming an eyesore. I would love to be able to show you a photograph of it now. Maybe I will send it to you after the meeting. We had correspondence with that angling club only yesterday.

I would love to say that determining the ownership has been a finger-pointing exercise for only a couple of years, but, as the weir has started to fall into disrepair, it has been getting worse and worse. You can see that the water level has dropped behind it. That is a barrier to fish passage, and that means that the fish can only ascend it when there is a tidal surge of some sort, which becomes a risk in itself. We are already having issues with the decline of Atlantic salmon, eels and so on. I think that that area is quite good for sea trout as well. It is just another problem, and I think that that case is probably the worst example that we can give. There are other sites that have had issues historically.

Mr Haughey: We have highlighted the issue that at least 11 hydroelectric sites and 16 fish farms are operating without having applied for a licence. For various reasons — I think because of the age of the barrier — they are given what is called a deemed-to-operate authorisation. Those have been operating without a proper licence application for many years, and that is an area of concern that we would like to be looked at.

Mr Thompson: John, you have jogged my memory. One of the outcomes that we seek in our briefing paper is to modernise the underlying fish-passage provisions. There is a qualified exemption for dams or barriers erected before 10 August 1842. We are nearly a couple of hundred years on from that, and there are still barriers to fish migration. We are looking for, maybe, each barrier to be examined based on the issues that they create. We are not asking for every single one to go. We know that that is not realistic, but, if they can be assessed on the issues that they are creating, we can assess that. That is based on heritage, flood and ecological factors. We can take all of that on board.

Ms Murphy: Your written brief contains a section on failed inspections and the lack of monitoring. Is it your view that an independent environmental agency would be more effective than the NIEA is and has been? I note that the Department review that was carried out into environmental governance stated that NIEA is less independent from government than its counterparts in neighbouring jurisdictions. What is your view on that?

Mr Haughey: The answer to that is relatively simple. It is all down to funding. The England and Wales Environment Agency is a good example. It is largely independent, but, over the past, say, two decades, it has been consistently starved of funds and staff. The result has been what has happened in the water supply-and-discharge industry in England and Wales, which has horrendous problems. A lot of it is due to the fact that the Environment Agency has not had the wherewithal to do anything about it. An independent agency would be great, but it is all down to funding and staffing. If it is not going to be adequately funded and staffed, there is no point.

Ms Murphy: With a lot of the water-quality issues in England, including those with Thames Water, there are some private interests in that space. Considering the Bill in its totality, along with the fact that the nutrients action plan (NAP) 2.0 is due soon, would there be any merit in approaching the Bill and other legislation as one consolidated Bill? Initially, that would be the Fisheries Act 1966, the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 and the Water Order 1999, with the potential of the NAP regulations running in parallel, in something that is similar to this Bill — both those Bills would be looking at water quality as a whole.

Mr Thompson: There would be issues with doing that. It would potentially create loopholes and confusion when it comes to fines. From memory, I think that, if the fine were to be increased in this Bill, it would have to be increased in the Water Order. Otherwise, from a legal point of view, there will be wriggle room to get the lower fine.

The issue of the fine is one of our major concerns. In 1966, a £20,000 fine was fairly substantial, and, as Jim said, that was pretty much the benchmark for the rest of the UK. In 1966, £20,000 was a significant amount of money, but, according to the Bank of England website, the equivalent figure in today's economy would be £338,000, due to inflation. The fine may be increased to £50,000. That figure would have been achieved through inflationary uplift by 1976 — within 10 years. That inflationary uplift was, let us say, absorbed quickly. In today's society the figure of £50,000 would dilute our ability to take action, based on the crime.

You are correct that any fine will need to transfer across to other legislation so that there is no confusion or wriggle room whereby somebody could say, "OK, so it is £50,000 in that legislation. We would prefer to be fined under the Water Order" or "We would prefer to be fined under the Fisheries Act". The pieces of legislation need to talk to one another and interlink, because that is a big worry. We do not want there to be competing legislation that could create wriggle room. We need a framework whereby one figure takes priority and that is cross-referenced in the other legislation, however that would work. The matter of the stronger fine is an issue for us.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I do not see any other members seeking to ask questions. Thank you, again, for coming in and presenting your evidence; it has been helpful.

Mr Thompson: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We will consider all the evidence as we move through the Bill process. Thank you very much for being here this morning.