Debate contribution: Nutrients Action Programme 2026-29: Opposition

Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on 10 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Patsy McGlone

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

10 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Nutrients Action Programme 2026-29: Opposition

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5001141

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As I stand here, my initial thoughts are about what I found out recently about Lough Neagh. The eel-fishing industry has been a core part of the economy for a lot of people on the lough. It has sustained many families. It is part of our history and culture going back many years. Indeed, it was part of a very detailed court case that was fought largely with the assistance of my predecessor on Cookstown District Council: the late, great Paddy Duffy. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber denies that the condition of Lough Neagh is contributing to the demise — I hope, temporarily — of Lough Neagh fishing, particularly eel fishing. I hope that that is not the case. However, it is one of the first symptoms that we see, aside from the numerous phone calls that many of us were getting when it was at its worst: "Can we drink the water?" or "Can we take our dogs near the water?" Wildfowlers were not able to conduct their normal practice on the morning of 1 September. Those are the real effects of what is going into the lough. Everything from algal blooms to fish deaths demands action. It demands partnership, innovation and shared responsibility across all sectors. While I agree that agriculture must play its part, I am rather disappointed that our amendment was not accepted. It dealt with key issues such as collaboration, education, support and financial incentivisation, which I will come back to, as part of any nutrients action programme. Ours is a vision that is rooted in partnership, not punishment. It balances environmental urgency with fairness, recognises the scale of the crisis without scapegoating farmers, and affirms that any sustainable nutrients policy must be co-designed, not imposed. The motion, while rightly concerned with water pollution, calls for the immediate withdrawal of the current nutrients action programme consultation. In my view, that is both premature and counterproductive. It is a consultation, not a conclusion. Withdrawing it now risks silencing voices rather than amplifying them. We should be pushing for deeper engagement, not cutting it short. Our amendment called for a multi-agency working group, which is exactly the kind of collaborative step that we should be taking. Farmers have real concerns about what is being proposed, including stricter phosphorus limits, mandatory low-emission slurry-spreading equipment and compulsory buffer strips. Regulation alone will not succeed; it must be accompanied by support. It is not enough to say to farmers, "Do better"; we must ask them, "How can we help you to do better?" That is exactly what our amendment sought to do through financial incentives.

I have not finished my point just yet, Timothy. On that last point, I would like to quote from a letter to the Minister from Dame Glenys Stacey of the Office for Environmental Protection, which states:

"Sufficient support for farmers to make the changes required will be a critical part of the success of the NAP proposals."

Point 6 of the annex to that letter states:

"Our view"

— that is the OEP's view —

"is that, whatever standards and expectations these regulations might set, DAERA should ensure farmers have access to the appropriate incentives and on- and off-farm support needed for effective implementation."

Again, "incentives, advice and guidance" is the key message. My message to all the Executive parties is this: clarify today whether you will commit to the incentivisation — the financial underpinning — that is required. I ask that of DAERA and all the parties that are in the Executive. Will you commit today to that integral incentivisation and on-farm support, which will be required for the transition for the farming community in particular?

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I agree, absolutely. In the South, we have seen the Government there working with the farmers. Look, it is not an easy process. In some circumstances, equipment worth £10,000, £15,000, £20,000 or more will be required for spreading slurry. That is just one example. If you are a farmer with an average income, which, as has been outlined, is £37,000 per annum, and you do not have huge acreage — these are not people with huge amounts of land — where are you going to get the money from for that? Those people need that support and incentivisation. Again, the question to the members of parties in the Executive who are speaking today is this: will you commit to your Executive colleagues underpinning the process with the support that is required to see it through? Otherwise, today is just about grandstanding. The approaches taken in the Republic have delivered real gains, because they have built trust rather than resentment and shown what is possible when farmers are part of the solution. Let me be clear —.

OK. Thank you very much.

801 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