Debate contribution: Nutrients Action Programme 2026-29: Opposition

Debate contribution by Mr Robbie Butler on 10 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Robbie Butler

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

10 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Nutrients Action Programme 2026-29: Opposition

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5001126

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I rise on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. We will support today's motion. We tried to improve on it, but, hopefully, our words will bring some clarity. The motion rightly reflects the deep concern and, in many cases, rising frustration that is felt in our farming and agri-food sectors regarding the direction and detail of the nutrients action programme consultation 2026-29. There is no doubt that improving water quality in Lough Neagh and across our rivers is essential. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber or, certainly, in the rural communities that I have spoken to denies the scale of the problem. However, we must be honest: the proposals that are on the table risk alienating the very people whose buy-in we require. Their expertise and practical action are essential to achieving real and lasting change. The motion talks about the 3,500 farms that face the prospect of stricter phosphorus limits, but the more I talk to farmers, the more they realise that they will all be impacted, whether they are involved in arable farming, smaller-scale farming or hill farming, and that the programme risks affecting all of them negatively. The proposals are not being made in a vacuum; they come at a time of immense financial pressure, workforce stress and a growing sense of disconnect between policymakers and those working the land. Only last Sunday, at a service of remembrance, hundreds gathered to honour those who had died on farms through tragic accidents or by suicide. That reality is a sobering reminder of the toll that pressures are already taking on our farming community. With serious and real pressures growing on family farms in Northern Ireland, we must, without doubt, face up to our environmental responsibilities — we absolutely have to — but we must not break farmers in doing so.

Yes

Thank you. I thank the Member for reminding the House of that. That draconian tax by the Labour Government has been a topic of great debate here. There are also the unmet pressures of bovine TB, the tariffs and the nutrients action programme. In reality, we need to step together, because, as I have said, the environmental responsibilities are shared and should not be shirked. That is why I support the call for the withdrawal of the consultation at this point. I do so not to abandon progress but to create space for a better, fairer more joined-up approach that is evidence-based, co-designed and genuinely multi-sectoral. I regret that the motion in its current form does not go far enough in recognising that agriculture is not the only source of pollution affecting Lough Neagh, nor is it the only sector in need of reform. Water quality in our rivers and lakes is being degraded not just by nutrient run-off but by inadequate waste water treatment infrastructure, industrial discharge — we had an incredible debate yesterday about what was happening at Mobuoy — climate change, temperature rises and invasive species such as zebra mussels that have an effect on the ecology of Lough Neagh. The question of whether to dredge or not to dredge also remains contentious. Those wider factors must be part of the conversation and not simply pushed to the sidelines. If we isolate agriculture, whilst ignoring those other pressures, we risk making the same mistakes again. Worse still, we risk losing the confidence of rural communities, the communities who want to be part of the solution but, too often, feel as if they are being treated as the problem.

On Mr McAleer's point about rural communities. Farming and agriculture uphold way more than just family farms. I accept that that interconnectedness makes it difficult from your perspective, Minister, in designing those things. However, the industry is absolutely clear about where it is going. That is why we need a reset and a strategy that respects farmers, rewards best practice and reflects the collective responsibility that we all share in protecting our environment. That includes collaboration between the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Minister for Infrastructure, particularly around the chronic underinvestment in waste water infrastructure, which continues to contribute to pollution across the region. As legislators, we must make sure that any statutory body that we have sets the pace. We are asking our family farmers to lead the way. We need to lead the way. Let us take this opportunity not just to withdraw the flawed consultation but to start again better. Let us involve farmers, environmental groups, scientists, rural communities and industry in a co-designed, evidence-led approach that balances sustainability with viability. What we need now is not blame or bureaucracy but a shared pathway to recovery that restores confidence, protects our waters and secures the future of farming in Northern Ireland.

795 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:42 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification