Debate contribution: Nutrients Action Programme 2026-29: Opposition

Debate contribution by Mr Jonathan Buckley on 10 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Jonathan Buckley

Party at the time

Democratic 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 5001567

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset, I declare an interest, as I have family members who work right across the agriculture sector. I pay tribute to my colleague Michelle McIlveen, who, despite some of the accusations in the Chamber about the intentions behind the motion, has always been a champion and friend of the rural environment, the rural community and the farmer. The motion reflects the sense of anger and despair that exists across Northern Ireland, which has been displayed over recent weeks, because of a Minister who is simply not listening. Today, Members have had their say, and farmers are having their say. I recently attended a consultation meeting at the Greenmount campus, at which there were hundreds of farmers in attendance. When asked from the floor to raise their hand if they supported Minister Muir's NAP proposals, not one did so. We are having the conversations, and the farming community is having the conversations, but the question is this: will the Minister actually listen? I cannot believe the response that I heard from the Minister. It is quite apparent that he has no intention of listening, and, to quote him, we can say it until we are "blue in the face", Minister, you are tone-deaf on the issues that affect farming. You are disconnected, and yours is a reckless approach to agriculture, which is a stable block of this society. Farmers are not just fighting for their livelihoods but fighting for our culture, our food security and our very identity. Every new rule, every inspection and every page of paperwork piles more stress and pressure on men and women who are already at breaking point. Minister, a top-down, heavy-handed approach serves only to tighten the screws. Where is the collaboration? Where is the respect for the people who know the land best? A four-week extension to a consultation was a crumb, not a solution.

I will in a moment. Make no mistake: the farmer wants and supports clean water. I have lived at the foot of Lough Neagh all my life. I have never once met a farmer who does not support having a clean water supply. In fact, when we look at history, as Mr Gaston noted, be it 1923, 1937 or 1967, we see that blue algae was in existence when the farmer was still using a horse and plough. However, I do not hear one single member of the Alliance Party today referring to the fact that some type of industrialised, intensive slurry operation or, indeed, agriculture caused blue algae in those circumstances. No, it did not. Your demonisation of agriculture is not lost on a cross-community cross section of the House, and it is not lost on the wider community. You have failed them, and you continue to single them out. We have seen a quick move on NAP. Where was the move to address a TB crisis that, in the past five years, has resulted in over 90,000 beef and dairy cattle being culled? Where was prioritising dealing with that by this place or the Minister? What about an ammonia policy that is stifling the sustainable growth of the agriculture industry? What about bringing on new blood and farm succession planning? There has been no focus on those issues from the Minister, just obstacles. Over 3,500 farms now face proposals that will impose stricter phosphorus limits and enforce mandatory use of, in some instances, costly low-emissions slurry-spreading equipment, which, as has been noted, is impractical in some parts of our countryside. Those measures, as we all know, will only add costly regulation and costly —.

I will give way at this stage, because the Member wants to have his say.

OK. It is a speech on the matter. Sorry, Mr Blair. It has been 20 minutes. Sorry, Mr Blair.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

In one moment. I want to address that intervention directly. That is typical of the condescending, sneering attitude of Alliance members towards anybody with any form of concern about their environmental extremism. They come to the House to tell us that we are the bad people who are causing pollution in Lough Neagh and, indeed, across Northern Ireland, but there is absolutely zero recognition of the very men and women who built this country. The Member talked about the 1920s and the horse and plough. I argue that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of just how generational farming is in communities across the country. He talked about scientific evidence. He will understand that there are debates about the very evidence that the Minister has put forward. I remember the words of Sinclair Mayne, who talked about the very shaky ground on which the science is presented. In fact, in many cases, it was absent when farmers wanted to quiz officials on exactly what was behind the policy intent. I will take no lectures from the Member.

Yes.

He had quite a senior role in the Department. In fact, when he was at the meeting and addressed those who were gathered at Greenmount, there was a shirking away by those departmental officials who knew about his impeccable record and, indeed, conduct whilst he was in the Department. It is those voices — indeed, the voices of those in this very Building; those who came up to Stormont today to place on record their concern — that the Minister and his party fail to take into consideration. We talk about the devastation of agriculture and livestock reduction. I noticed that the Minister was very hot and heavy when he said that this is not a reduction of agriculture. Let us read the room. Calculations suggest that farmers will potentially need more than twice their current acreage to deal with some of these conditions. To do that is not based on any reality, and, looking at it from a point of practical common sense, farmers are being forced into herd reduction as a result of the policy. It is herd reduction by stealth. We cannot make more land: that is a simple, known fact. However, to pursue a policy such as this will devastate agriculture in many ways. Northern Ireland is responsible for 20% of the UK's food production. That should be a badge of honour. It is at the heart of food security. Policies in this place, in the past, ensured that farmers had fair representation and helped to grow our economy. They are still an absolutely integral part of the agri-food sector. This proposal, taken to its natural conclusion, could result in tens of thousands of jobs being lost. I did not say those words: look at the joint letter from the industry. The industry is very clear that the policy is unworkable and that we need to step back, remove the consultation and have a genuine moment of engagement, cross-sector and cross-party, to ensure that we can protect those in the agri-food sector. It is a crucial economic pillar, a lifeline for rural communities and a crucial component of national food security. At a time when global supply chains are constrained, food costs are rising and we are being told to buy local, we must provide help. The motion will be passed by the Assembly. Many farmers, Minister, want your P45.

Today's motion puts you on notice. Heed the warning. Listen to the people, and stand up for the farmer. Stop being the myopic Minister; a man with tunnel vision, careering down the dead-end path of NAP, leading to the inevitable consequence, which will ultimately result in the devastation of the only original industry that we have left in this country. It means a lot to the people of Northern Ireland to have a Minister whom they know has the back of the farmer. Work with them. Let us get —

— through this situation and ensure that we have a sustainable future. Thank you.

1,318 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