Debate contribution: Nutrients Action Programme 2026-29: Opposition

Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on 10 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Andrew Muir

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

10 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Nutrients Action Programme 2026-29: Opposition

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5001529

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. In considering this debate, I will hopefully give a comprehensive response to the points raised. I will also review Hansard, and, if there are any points that I have not covered in my response, I will seek, where appropriate, to deal with them in writing. We have a crisis with water quality in Northern Ireland. It is not just Lough Neagh: Lough Erne, Belfast lough and many other waterbodies across Northern Ireland are now in a critical state. As an Executive, we stood up and made a promise in the Programme for Government that we would protect Lough Neagh and the environment. If we cannot take difficult decisions to address the crisis in Lough Neagh, frankly, our Programme for Government is not worth the paper it is written on. It is not lost on me that 40% of our drinking water comes from Lough Neagh. Improving water quality is vital not just because of the importance of our waterbodies to local businesses, recreation and tourism but for basic public health reasons and because of the need to ensure a supply of safe, clean drinking water without the taste and odour issues reported in the last two years when algal blooms were at their worst. We must address the crisis before it is too late. Our constituents expect no less, and, if we are to succeed, the status quo is not an option. The vital need to protect our water quality is the reason we have the nutrients action programme (NAP). Simply put, the NAP fulfills a legal requirement to reduce water pollution from agricultural sources. That is not new. The first nitrates action programme to apply across the whole of Northern Ireland was introduced in 2007. The nitrates action programme established a range of measures and controls on livestock manures and chemical fertilisers, and there is a legal obligation to review it every four years. The current NAP was due to be reviewed in 2022. We have therefore already fallen behind that time frame because it has taken time to make sure that this complex issue is underpinned by science and evidence and the necessary environmental assessments. The constant cycle of crisis and collapse of our institutions and a lack of political leadership has also had an impact on the delivery of the NAP and has seen our environment fall short across the board, as evidenced by a number of recent investigations by the Office for Environmental Protection, which is closely monitoring progress with regard to the NAP review. Last Friday, the Office for Environmental Protection published its letter of advice on the NAP proposals. The letter is on the OEP website, and I encourage you to read it. I welcome that advice, which highlights the need to strengthen existing NAP measures to ensure that we meet our environmental obligations. I take heed of Dame Glenys Stacey's warning that the consequences of failing to address nutrient pollution in the round are grave, including for our drinking water and our agriculture sector. That is why I am committed to continuing with the consultation, and it is important that I reiterate that it is a consultation on revised NAP measures for the next four years. No final decisions have been taken. It would be entirely improper to shut down a consultation and deny people their say, as the motion requests. When the consultation closes on 24 July, all the responses will be considered. To ensure that that is done in an open and inclusive way, I gave a commitment last week that my Department will establish a small stakeholder group. That group will be in addition to the existing stakeholder group and will bring together relevant organisations, such as the UFU and Northern Ireland Environment Link, to consider the consultation responses, the measures that will be taken forward and a time frame for each. That will help us to move forward together on the issue. Hopefully, it will help us to come to an agreed position so that I can take final proposals to the Executive later this year. Since the NAP consultation launched in May, I have listened to feedback and commentary on the proposals. I recognise that there are concerns about the impact that the proposals could have on agri-food and the impact of delay on our environment. Just last week, I met representatives from the UFU and Northern Ireland Environment Link.

Yes.

Thank you. That will be the last intervention that I will accept because I have lost a significant amount of time as a result of that intervention. I believe in an all-island approach, which why I am engaging with my Irish Government colleagues. In the spirit of openness and transparency, I will ensure that a letter confirming the outcome of last Tuesday's meeting is deposited today in the Assembly Library. There is no doubt that that meeting was frank and challenging, and I would like to address some of the concerns that arose from it in the next few minutes. First, I will address the issue of source apportionment. Much has been said about the source of nutrients, particularly phosphorus, which comes from waste water and sewage. I have already been very clear in stating that it is important that everyone plays their part in finding a solution. The current situation, where sewage is pumped into our rivers, lakes and loughs, is a complete and utter disgrace and requires tougher regulation and enforcement. I am the first Minister to face up to that challenge and address the unacceptable permission to pollute granted to NI Water on its establishment in 2007. It is not lost on me that my predecessors did not go near the issue. I want Northern Ireland Water to be treated like all other polluters in Northern Ireland. It is wrong that it is given special status in that regard. NI Water and the Department for Infrastructure have until 7 July to come back to me on my proposal to end the bye-ball granted under what is known as "SORPI". As Minister, I will not be found wanting in dealing with all forms of pollution in a fair and balanced way. Moving beyond sewage pollution, we cannot ignore the fact that there is validated scientific evidence that agriculture is a major source of the phosphorus that is polluting our water bodies. We must remember that the nutrients action programme is the legal framework for tackling water pollution from agricultural sources, and the narrative around that must not be sidetracked. Next, I will address the concerns that I have heard about the potential impact of the measures on the agriculture sector. Let me be clear: the nutrients action programme is about managing nutrients in a way that reduces water pollution. Its foundation is on a code of good agricultural practice. It is about efficient farming and environmental sustainability. It is not — not — about reducing livestock numbers. The consultation is accompanied by an initial regulatory impact —.

I will continue. The consultation is accompanied by an initial regulatory impact assessment of implementing the proposed measures. It sets out the initial monetised costs and non-monetary benefits of the proposed measures. I can assure the House that, following the NAP consultation, my officials will undertake a full economic impact assessment of the final measures. That will ensure that any decisions on draft proposals are informed by a full and complete understanding of their potential impact. The third issue that I would like to address is the discourse on the science and evidence that have been a significant factor in the development of the NAP proposals. I note that questions have been raised about the science, and I assure Members that my Department has processes in place to seek independent, expert scientific advice and to commission external peer reviews of any issues that may emerge from the consultation. I mentioned earlier that I will establish a small stakeholder group. That will be an excellent forum in which to address any issues that are raised and to reassure anyone who has concerns about scientific evidence. A programme of stakeholder engagement events and meetings took place last year and in recent weeks. They have been informative and helpful. However, the consultation is the most important way for all stakeholders to be heard. I encourage everyone to respond, and I am committed to listening to the concerns of all stakeholders, including farmers and the agriculture industry more broadly, on the proposed measures and the impact that they may have on their businesses. I am also committed to hearing the views of organisations and citizens who are concerned about declining water quality. I reiterate my commitment to moving forward collaboratively and inclusively to make sure that all voices are heard as part of the consultation process. I want to make it clear that the time when one sector, essentially, writes government policy is over. Going for Growth was a mistake. The issue of reducing the nutrient pollution to which Going for Growth helped to contribute is urgent. The Office for Environmental Protection rightly expects that NAP regulations will be updated and effectively implemented in a timely manner. Making the changes and improvements that are needed will require collective action across the agri-food sector, including feed and fertiliser suppliers and processors. It cannot be left to the Department and farmers. We need to work across the sector to support farmers and get to a more sustainable position on nutrients and water quality. My Department has been delivering a range of funding schemes and initiatives to help farmers to improve water quality and nutrient management. It has rolled out £97 million in support since 2017. We all know that farmers have been working for years with the Department on water quality. We need to build on that and reduce surplus nutrients through an effective NAP. There is much more that needs to be done. Going forward, there will be focused knowledge transfer, education and support to help ensure the effective implementation of the NAP. I acknowledge that some of the proposed measures in the NAP consultation will, of course, require investment. Officials in my Department will consider how we can meet that funding need in the time ahead. Taking today's contributions into account, I look forward to a bumper budget in the years ahead. I recognise that time frames for the implementation of measures are important. Therefore, any decisions around time frames will be informed by the feedback from the consultation and the considerations provided by the small stakeholder group. It is vital that, in making improvements to address our water quality, we develop solutions that, as well as meeting our legislative requirements are evidence-based, workable at farm level and have realistic time frames for delivery. I turn to the issue of compliance with the current NAP regulations. As Minister, I know that the majority of farmers are good custodians of our countryside who play by the rules and do what is right when it comes to water quality. That is what I see regularly when I am out and about. The small minority who break the rules and bring the whole sector into disrepute do not reflect all the others who are farming with nature. Some of us in the House may be aware of the reported fraud in slurry movements that occurred in the Republic of Ireland and recent moves to address the issue by requiring movements to be logged every four days, not by January of the following year. As Minister, I am seriously concerned that such fraudulent behaviour around slurry movements is also likely to have occurred in Northern Ireland, where reported exports do not, in fact, occur. I am limited in what more I can say, as active investigations are under way, but be assured that among the proposals in the NAP consultation is the introduction of an enhanced online system to require the prompt reporting of exports and imports to crack down on that entirely immoral behaviour. I urge every Member who is considering voting to support the motion to fully consider the consequences of their actions. Those who back the motion under the DUP banner of "Scrap the NAP" are willingly and consciously consigning Lough Neagh to becoming a dead lake. I do not say this lightly, but it is true: we have an environmental catastrophe on our doorstep. The scenes of blue-green algae are being repeated year after year. The challenges being experienced by the Lough Neagh Fishermen's Co-operative Society are now, sadly, well known.

When it comes to Lough Neagh and water quality in Northern Ireland, it seems that some parties are happier with empty promises and hollow words in manifestos. You cannot govern by sound bites and photo opportunities. People deserve honesty about the issues that we face. They deserve open, genuine public consultations and a focus on actions.

As Minister, the easiest thing that I could have done would have been to make tokenistic gestures and talk around the problem, but I owe it to everyone to deliver on the Lough Neagh action plan, which was agreed by all Executive parties in July of last year. The political opportunism from those other parties, which signed up to the plan yet now seek to distance themselves from it and to work to drive a wedge between us, is profoundly disappointing. There is nothing unusual or unscheduled about the NAP consultation that is under way. It is action 22 of the Lough Neagh action plan, which states:

"Complete the statutory review of the Nutrients Action Programme (NAP), consult on proposals within the updated NAP and introduce revised NAP Regulations."

The position of our official Opposition is also disheartening. On the one hand, the SDLP has urged me to save Lough Neagh decisively. On the other hand, on Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, the SDLP has called for the return of Going for Growth, with all its clear environmental consequences. In conclusion, the NAP consultation is not only necessary but urgent.

I am going to continue. The responsible management of nutrients is critical for the sustainability of our agriculture sector and the protection of our natural environment. We face serious water quality challenges at Lough Neagh and other waterways, and we need to turn the curve. That is why I am committed to continuing with the consultation on the revised NAP measures for 2026-29. As I have said, time and time again, until I am blue in the face, they are proposals. No final decisions have been taken. If we cannot even consult on proposals, I fear for the environment in Northern Ireland. I recognise the challenges, but together we can and must overcome them. As Minister, I am firmly committed to safeguarding our environment and to securing the long-term sustainability of our agriculture sector. Collective action on both is absolutely essential.

2,483 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:45 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