Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I welcome from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs the following officials: Gareth Dillon, deputy director, marine and fisheries division; Patrick Smith, sea fisheries policy branch; and Suha Ibrahem, sea fisheries policy branch. I now invite you to brief the Committee.

Mr Gareth Dillon (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Chair. The SL1 before the Committee sets out the Department's intention to make a statutory rule (SR) called the Shellfish Gathering (Conservation) (No.2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026. Members will be aware that, in January this year, the Department made a prior statutory rule that provided for a closed season for the gathering of periwinkles from January to April each year in the intertidal area across Northern Ireland. Following an evidence session with the Committee in early February 2026 involving industry representatives, the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force (NIMTF) and departmental officials, that SR was subsequently revoked. Concerns that stakeholders expressed during that session included the fact that limited notice of the regulations would impact on their contractual commitments and that the closed season for periwinkles included businesses' peak periods for the sale or export of periwinkles.

Following the revocation, the Department engaged with stakeholders to discuss the proposed statutory rule that is being considered today. It prohibits the taking of periwinkles by any means from the intertidal area in Strangford lough from the beginning of January until the end of April each year, beginning in January 2027. Importantly, the proposed closure in the inner Strangford lough area over the period from January to April aligns with the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) recommendations on duration and location, while still allowing for the harvesting of periwinkles elsewhere during the closed period. The recommendations were contained in an AFBI scientific study that was published in 2022, ahead of a wider public consultation on the proposed management measures for the hand-gathering of shellfish from the intertidal area. The AFBI report that preceded the consultation included a recommendation for a closed season from January to April each year in order to best protect the spawning stock.

The proposed statutory rule also supports the delivery of the joint fisheries statement (JFS) by introducing a proportionate precautionary management measure that is intended to protect the sustainability of the periwinkle resource in the Strangford lough area. The measure seeks to balance environmental sustainability and the continued social and economic benefits that the fishery provides, thus helping ensure that the resource remains available for harvesting into the future.

The proposal in the draft statutory rule gives practical effect at a local level to the JFS commitment to improve the management of non-quota stocks, including shellfish, so that they are harvested sustainably on the basis of the best available evidence and, where appropriate, the precautionary approach. The measure also sits within the wider JFS commitment to ecosystem-based fisheries management, recognising that the sustainable exploitation of individual species and the health and resilience of the wider marine environment are interconnected.

The proposed time-limited closure represents a targeted intervention rather than a prohibition on the fishery. It is intended to provide protection during the period in which that is considered most beneficial to stock sustainability, while allowing gathering to continue outside that period. The approach is consistent with the joint fisheries statement's commitment to sustainable, precautionary, evidence-based and ecosystem-based management of non-quota shellfish stocks and the available scientific evidence. I will pause there for questions.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much, Gareth. How will the Department monitor compliance in the closed season? What enforcement measures will be available?

Mr Dillon: Departmental enforcement officers will carry out monitoring, which initially will be proportionate and risk-based. There will be clear communication in order to explain species, dates and boundaries, and advice and guidance will be given. The relevant penalties are contained in the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, and they are up to a maximum of £1,000.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you. Have you assessed whether any commercial periwinkle harvesting is taking place currently without the necessary Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) consent?

Mr Patrick Smith (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): We have some data pertaining to Strangford lough from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, which certifies the export of periwinkles to the market. Two suppliers, out of five in total, source 5% and 10% respectively of the material that they export from Strangford lough.

Mr McAleer: Has any assessment been done of the economic impact on the families and small businesses that may rely on periwinkle gathering?

Mr Dillon: An impact assessment was undertaken at the time of the initial consultation in 2022. Subsequent to our most recent appearance at the Committee, there has been targeted engagement with some periwinkle gatherers. By way of an anonymous survey, we asked gatherers about the extent of the impact on them. The original consultation in 2022 also asked what the impact would be. In it, 86% of respondents supported the closed season, while 11% objected to it. Interestingly, 65% of respondents said that there would be no economic impact, while 24% said there would be. Presumably, those who said that there would be an economic impact therefore included people who would support the closed season.

Responses to the recent consultation with hand gatherers set out the monetary value of the periwinkles gathered. Unfortunately, the consultation did not go into what the impact of the specific closed season would be on the inner Strangford lough area. The consultation was limited to that area, however, so the same activity is not prohibited from taking place elsewhere.

Mr McAleer: Following on from that, you mentioned that the regulations are targeted at the Strangford lough area. Have you assessed the perhaps unintended consequences of gatherers being displaced to other locations?

Mr Dillon: It is recognised that there is potential for displacement to other areas. We cannot assess any consequences at this stage, but a seeder project is due to be undertaken that will assess stock density and spawning periods in different areas outside the Strangford lough area. That is certainly something on which the Department will keep a close watch.

Mr McAleer: Thank you, Gareth.

Ms Finnegan: My questions, which were on the rural needs implications, have been covered. Where people have no legal right to undertake commercial activity, they could use the open season. Enforcement powers are already in place. Are they being used, and if not, why not?

Mr Smith: They are not being used currently, because the fishery is unregulated. There are therefore no powers to enforce any regulations pertaining to the gathering of periwinkles. It is an unregulated fishery, so there is nothing to enforce.

Ms Finnegan: The closed season happens in England, but not in Scotland, Wales or the South of Ireland. I think that I am right in saying that. Have you considered how other areas are operating currently?

Mr Smith: Yes, we have looked at that. There is no restriction in the Republic of Ireland or in Scotland. In England, however, there are 10 inshore fisheries conservation authorities (IFCAs) around the coast. They have autonomy within nought to 6 nautical miles. Certain IFCAs have by-laws/regulations that restrict not solely hand-gathering for periwinkles but hand-gathering activities through the use of permits and through minimum conservation reference sizes. The draft SR before the Committee today is solely for Strangford lough and is based on the scientific evidence that AFBI produced and published back in 2022.

Ms Finnegan: Thank you very much for that.

Ms Murphy: I will go back to a point that Aoife was getting at. You said that the purpose of the SR is to address the fact that the fishery is totally unregulated. In her line of questioning, I think that Aoife was trying to get at the fact that environmental legislation is already in place that the Department could use. Instead of presenting an SL1 looking for a closed season, could the Department not use the existing environmental legislation?

Mr Smith: There is nothing to prohibit the gathering of periwinkles from the intertidal area. The powers that we are using are from the 1966 Act. They allow us to conserve the fishery and the stocks therein. That is what we are using here to close off the Strangford lough area to ensure the sustainability of the periwinkle stock. On the environmental side, there are food safety regulations that are administered by councils' environmental health officers. This is a separate matter, however. Those regulations are used for food safety reasons when placing such products on the market.

Ms Murphy: I do not want to go down an economic or environmental rabbit hole, but any shellfish — in this case, periwinkles — play a huge role in the marine ecosystem. Again, I do not know off the top of my head what the existing environmental legislation is, but, given periwinkles' importance to the marine ecosystem, could this not be wrapped up with that environmental legislation without there having to have a closed season?

To return to Declan's point, I have a concern that the regulations could possibly lead to shellfish gathering intensifying in other areas. Depending on what way the Committee votes on the SL1, we will not know the full ramifications until after the SR is either approved or negatived.

Mr Smith: We were asked about the environmental argument for protecting the periwinkle stock. We are looking at Strangford lough specifically. It is a special area of conservation (SAC), so we have a duty to conserve the designated features therein.

The SR offers an opportunity to do that. The area is a hotspot for over 2,000 wildlife species, and there are protections in place for birds that rely on periwinkles. Our reason for having a closed season is well documented.

Ms Murphy: The NI Marine Task Force presented to the Committee back in January, if my memory serves, and it had a number of concerns. Things have moved on since then. Can the Department state that the concerns that the NI Marine Task Force had will be addressed? Although it states in its response that it supports the draft SR, it highlights a number of issues with long-term sustainability. It mentions ensuring compliance with food safety regulations and exploring the possibility of having a register. I want to get a sense of what the Department's relationship with the NI Marine Task Force is.

Mr Smith: The suggestions from the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force are wrapped up in what we are looking at in the wider fisheries management plan (FMP) for intertidal shellfish gathering. The issues of registration and safety when gathering were covered in questions in the 2022 consultation. We have a relationship with the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force through the working group for the co-design of the FMP. The draft FMP will be consulted on in 2027 prior to final publication at the end of 2027, and those things will be borne out once the draft FMP goes out to consultation. We meet the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force regularly on several forums, including the FMP working group and the inshore fisheries partnership group, so we recognise its concerns.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): The final questions are from Daniel.

Mr Blair: And then it is me.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Sorry, John.

Mr McCrossan: A number of the areas that I was going to ask about have been covered. I would, however, like clarification on a point that Declan raised about the impact of the regulations on those who make an income from intertidal shellfish gathering. Did you say that you had identified five? I am not quite clear about to what you were referring.

Mr Smith: There are five processor businesses in the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area, and one, I think, in Ards. They are the processors that buy the product from the pickers. We do not know who the pickers are, because there is no need for them to register with the Department, although we are looking to introduce that. Pickers may get £3 or £4 a kilogram. If they are picking periwinkles with a bucket, that is as much as they would get on any given day. The processors will then charge a higher price than that for the sake of their profit margins.

Mr McCrossan: I am concerned that the closed period would simply move the problem elsewhere. What is suggested by the evidence from where closed seasons are in place? Is it England? Where are closed seasons in place? I heard someone say where.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Scotland.

Mr McCrossan: Scotland.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): The Republic of Ireland.

Mr Smith: I did not quite catch that, sorry.

Mr Blair: England.

Mr McCrossan: What has the evidence from other areas where the closed periods are in place told us about whether the problem moves elsewhere?

Mr Smith: I do not think that any closed periods are in place in England. What it has —.

Mr McCrossan: What has the evidence from any areas where a closed period is in place told us?

Mr Smith: I do not think that England has closed periods in place. Rather, it has licences. Some of the IFCAs have a restricted number of licences . There maybe a closed period for another type of stock that is gathered through intertidal gathering, although I cannot say for sure. The IFCAs will, however, have permitting arrangements that restrict the number of people who can go out to pick.

Mr McCrossan: OK. Will you explain how a closed season interacts with the existing area of special scientific interest (ASSI) consent requirements? Does being outside the closed season confer any permission?

Mr Smith: I cannot take that question. We may need to come back to you on that.

Mr McCrossan: It is important.

Mr Smith: If there are restrictions —.

Mr McCrossan: The consent applications for ASSIs are a very real issue. It is not that they are an issue, but they are there, and I wonder how they will affect the closed period.

Mr Smith: That is a separate piece of work.

Mr McCrossan: If it exists.

Mr Smith: If there are existing consent requirements, that would not be needed. If a closed period were to be introduced in Strangford, ASSI consent requirements would have to be complied with.

Mr McCrossan: OK.

Mr Blair: The conservation need, driven by science and evidence, is laid out before us, along with the feelings of local people. There are producers, but there are also those who live in the area, as well as tourism and other hospitality businesses. The area has an excellent reputation, given the attraction of Strangford lough and its natural importance. I note that the importance of sustainably managing shellfish, cockles, mussels, scallops, razor clams, oysters and other intertidal species is vital to safeguarding the biodiversity of the area. Local people have written to the Committee about it, and the argument has also been backed up by representations from the NI Marine Task Force. This is in your briefing paper, but I want it confirmed verbally for the record: Newry, Mourne and Down District Council also supports the SR.

Mr McCrossan: Yes.

Mr Smith: I do not know what Newry, Mourne and Down District Council has said in response to your call for evidence.

Mr Blair: It states here that it does.

Mr Smith: We are not privy to —. Is that the SL1 consultation?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): It is a briefing document.

Mr Blair: It may well be, yes.

Mr Smith: We have not seen any of the responses to the call for evidence. If I heard the Chair correctly, there were 1,200 responses.

Mr Blair: OK. Yes. The council is quoted as supporting the SR.

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): OK. We have asked all our questions. Following on from what we have heard today, and bearing in mind that the SL1 is the last opportunity for the Committee to influence the policy approach, are members content that we have sufficient information to make a decision on the draft SR?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has considered the Shellfish Gathering (Conservation) (No.2) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026 and has no objection to the rule, subject to the Examiner of Statutory Rules' report. Do members agree?

The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): I thank the witnesses for coming to the Committee.