Official Report: Minutes of Evidence
Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, meeting on Tuesday, 10 November 2026
Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill: Committee deliberations
The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We are joined by departmental officials Gareth Dillon, Diane Black, Seamus Connor and Tommy McCormick. You are welcome today. Before the briefing, the Clerk will summarise what we discussed in closed session.
The Committee Clerk: For the record, I will run through what we discussed in closed session on clauses 4 to 6, and then the Chair will ask you for your briefing.
The Chair read a summary of the main evidence points on clauses 4, 5 and 6 as we worked through them. We noted that clause 4 covers the Department's duties. Although amendments have been proposed, the Committee understands that, if the Department has to deviate from the policy statement, clear reasons must be given. We will therefore write to you for examples of potential deviations in order to give the Committee a better practical flavour of what that might look like.
We discussed the fact that the duties cover all of Part 1. The Committee will consider whether there is a need to replicate that in other Parts. Again, that will be highlighted in a letter.
There was a discussion about definitions in clause 5 and some of the proposed amendments from stakeholders regarding the definitions of "fish activities" and "aquaculture activities". We discussed the fact that that clause is really there to direct you to read those definitions. That was understood. Some stakeholders called for clearer definitions. Clause 5 is certainly the place to do that, if the Committee is minded to do so. However, there was discussion about the fact that defining environmental sustainability, for example, in the Bill could be difficult, because it may become too restrictive and limiting. The Committee will ask for the Department's views on that too.
The Department has already come back on the additional objectives about which we wrote to it last week. We discussed the fact that the Department's opinion is that the sustainability, ecosystem and by-catch objectives cover the extra objectives that stakeholders proposed.
Measurable outcomes were discussed. They are not in the Bill, but we understand that they usually come forward in regulations and that it is quite unusual to see them in a Bill. Again, we will ask for confirmation of that.
The Committee understands that the way in which the Bill is drafted means that the review of the policy statement is ongoing. That could include identifying an objective that had not been met or that was not working as well as the Department expected. Outcomes are not usually included in a Bill.
A member cautioned against including very defined definitions in the Bill such as those for environmental status or fish species, because concerns can change over time.
The Committee considered a proposed amendment on sensitive species that would potentially exclude birds that are controlled by the Department or are deemed to be pests. We will write to you for your views on that.
The Chair read out the advice from the Examiner of Statutory Rules (ESR) on clause 6. The potential for regulatory gaps has been raised in the evidence to the Committee. In some of the evidence, there seems to be a misunderstanding about the Department's duties in developing regulations. For example, it would be normal practice to consult the relevant parties in detail.
Fees were discussed. The Committee heard and understood that the values of fees are not usually set out in a Bill, because they would then be hard to change without further primary legislation. We noted that there are references to specific fee values in the schedule, but that is because they are substituting the values that are specified in the legislation that the Bill is amending. Again, we will write about those issues to get confirmation that the Committee's understanding is correct.
Mr Gareth Dillon (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Chair. I will speak to Part 2, which comprises clauses 7 and 8. The powers that are currently available for enforcing sea fisheries legislation in Northern Ireland are found in several different pieces of legislation. Those include the Sea Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 and the Sea Fisheries Act 1968.
The 1966 Act provides powers for appointed fisheries officers for the conservation and protection of fisheries. The common enforcement powers, as provided via Part 2, would assist fisheries officers in addressing issues relating to sea fisheries and the marine environment. The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 provides common enforcement powers for marine enforcement officers in Britain to enforce marine licensing, nature conservation and fisheries legislation that includes any enactment relating to sea fishing, including fishing for shellfish, salmon or migratory trout. The 2009 Act also amended the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 so that persons who are appointed as marine enforcement officers under section 235 of the 2009 Act are also British sea fisheries officers.
The common enforcement powers that are available through the 2009 Act have not yet been used to enforce sea fisheries offences in Northern Ireland. In Ireland, the powers of fisheries officers are brought together in the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006. That Act contains many of the additional powers that are available in Britain for fisheries legislation but that are not yet available in Northern Ireland, such as the use of proportionate force. Those powers would ensure that sea fisheries officers have access to all enforcement powers under a single framework. In turn, that would enable prosecutions, support an efficient enforcement regime and provide equivalent powers to British and Irish counterparts. Those powers are already available to enforcement officers in Northern Ireland under the Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 for enforcing certain articles of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985; the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002; and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995. They are also available under the 2009 Act for the enforcement of marine licensing in Northern Ireland and for the purpose of enforcing the legislation in the Northern Ireland offshore region that is made under sections 137E and 137G of the 2009 Act to protect the marine environment from the effects of fishing activities.
The public consultation on the proposals included one question that is directly relevant to Part 2 and that asked respondents whether they agree that the Department should standardise enforcement powers for fisheries officers in Northern Ireland in order to bring them into line with those in Britain and Ireland. A total of 53 responses, including nine emails, were received to the consultation. Of those who addressed that question, 86% agreed with the proposal and a small number disagreed. I am happy to stop there.
The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): Thank you very much. I have one question on this. The Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation (NIFPO) highlighted the fact that provisions imported from the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 refer to offences under English and Welsh law. Can you clarify whether Northern Ireland fishing vessels that operate in the Northern Ireland zone could be subject to enforcement action based on provisions that are framed by reference to the English and Welsh legislation?
Mr Dillon: Do you mean if they are in the Northern Ireland zone?
Mr Dillon: I am not sure. I can certainly look that up. Clause 7 provides for common and fisheries enforcement powers to be exercised in the Northern Ireland zone for Northern Ireland vessels when they are outside that zone. I am sorry that I am not able to directly answer the question, but I will come back to you.
Mr Dillon: "Reasonable force" is a term that is commonly used in legislation. It is case-specific. It depends on the circumstances of the case and is very difficult to definitively capture in legislation. The same power is available to officers in Britain and Northern Ireland under the Marine Act 2013. Training, advice and guidance on reasonable force would be provided to fisheries officers. Any use of force must be proportionate, lawful, accountable and necessary. The Department is considering how enforcement officers in neighbouring jurisdictions use it and will seek to uphold the same standard.
The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): This is probably not in the Bill, but how can fishermen challenge what they consider to be inappropriate use of reasonable force? That is not in a passage for any complaint on something that has been considered reasonable force.
Ms Diane Black (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): That would go through our Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs complaints procedure. A complaint can be lodged, which is dealt with at stage one and stage two, and then the ombudsman can consider whether there is continued disagreement on it.
The Committee Clerk: We have to do clause 9. Were those clauses 7 and 8?
Mr Dillon: Clause 8 provides definitions to support clause 7.
Mr Tommy McCormick (Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Clause 9 relates to the mode of trial and penalty for offences. The Bill will update the penalties for offences. It brings forward changes that are set out in the schedule to the Fisheries Act 1966, the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 and the Water Order 1999, along with consequential and transitional arrangements that are necessary to facilitate those changes.
The key feature of the Bill is that it modernises the penalties for fisheries and water-related offences. Many penalties in existing legislation are decades old and no longer act as an effective deterrent. In some cases, the fines are set at levels that do not reflect the seriousness of harm that can be caused to ecosystems or fish stocks.
In the case of offences under the Fisheries Act, section 201 provides that an offence under the Act is punishable summarily only — that is, only through the Magistrates' Court — and with a fine of up to £500. The Bill increases that amount from £500 to £10,000 in summary cases, and some cases where there are more serious offences proceed to the High Court. In cases where the legislation permits an offence to be tried summarily, the maximum level must be included in the legislation. We have done that through the Bill. Where a case goes to the High Court, the level could be unlimited, but it is for the court to decide that.
The main thrust of the provision is not to be punitive for the sake of being punitive; it is about ensuring that the legal framework reflects the true value of our natural resources and the importance of protecting them. It is also meant to act as a deterrent to non-compliance with the current legislation.
The Committee Clerk: No, Chair. We need to stop there and go back into closed session to discuss those clauses.
The Chairperson (Ms D Armstrong): We might call you back in. We will discuss clauses 7, 8 and 9 in closed session, and we might call you back in for some questions. Thank you very much. Hopefully, we will not keep you too long.
The Committee Clerk: I will do my best to summarise some of the discussion. There was discussion regarding the enforcement powers that are in clause 7. Again, the Bill is directing you to previous Acts and the enforcement powers therein. There is confusion among some stakeholders regarding what law applies to Northern Ireland fishing boats if they are outside the NI zone; we know that the Bill covers the boats when they are in the NI zone. There was some discussion about English and Welsh legislation potentially applying; certainly, there was confusion among some stakeholders who are not clear how the Bill reads. The Committee discussed the fact that the definition of "reasonable force" has caused concern among some stakeholders and noted that it possibly depends on what officers face on the day, as they may have to make a fluid decision depending on what they face. Whether it is possible to define "unreasonable force" was discussed, but the Committee probably will come back to you on that.
We received a proposal from an individual on including in clause 7 potential binding commitments on, for example, resources for the sea fisheries inspectorate and coastal surveillance etc. That may stray well outside the scope of the Bill, but we will write to the Department and highlight it. The Committee discussed how boat owners or skippers could complain if they feel that unreasonable force has been used. We discussed that, and, during the public session, you highlighted the complaints process. It may be, therefore, that it is just about having something in place, whether in the Bill or by another method, to make stakeholders more aware that that is the route.
We discussed how clause 8 covers how clause 7 will work with regard to its reference to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Some respondents were unclear about the fact that the powers of that Act are not imported into the Bill but are being directed to powers that already exist in the 2009 Act. However, we had some concerns about matters that the Anglo Northern Ireland Fish Producers Organisation (ANIFPO) and NIFPO raised, and we will put their concerns to the Department, as, in their view, there seems to be some blurring in the Bill of what applies to inland fisheries and what applies to sea fisheries. The definitions of "sea fisheries" and "inland fisheries" in the Bill would perhaps have to be looked at. Again, however, that is for us to scope out with you, and we may also query that further with NIFPO and ANIFPO to seek clarity on their concerns. We will write to you, however, about what they have told us so far. Is it to do with the practical implementation of the existing legislation or the lack of clear division between inland fisheries and sea fisheries? According to some stakeholders, there are potential contradictions in the Bill, particularly on the size of fish and returning catch, that apply to sea fisheries but not to inland fishing.
On clause 9, we looked at the schedule, which amends a significant number of pieces of legislation, primarily the 1966 Act. We discussed how the values in the 1966 Act are no longer appropriate and that the Committee will consider the level of increases. There is an amendment for a proposed new clause 9A, and the Committee will consider whether the Department can be more transparent in clause 9 about the appropriate enforcement response. We will come back to you on that. We discussed perspective, as £1,000 in 1966 is worth £24,000 now, and the fact that increases need to be skewed in line with the realities of 1966 and today.
We discussed the speed of responses for pollution incidents and how quickly matters can come before the court. The Committee will look into the possibility of having timescales for the notification of pollution incidents to the Department, potential ways to encourage easier reporting of issues and the publication of the action that is being taken. However, that is all for further discussion. We discussed the methods that are available currently, such as the nidirect pollution hotline or walking into a local DAERA station.
I do not know whether members wish to raise any particular queries on that.
The Committee Clerk: That gives you a heads-up of what will be coming by letter.