Debate contribution: Mineral Licensing Moratorium

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 17 June 2025.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

17 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Mineral Licensing Moratorium

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5014103

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am slightly at a loss as to how to cover a few of the points that have been raised in the debate. It would obviously be helpful if the Minister for the Economy were here to respond, because we have just heard that she did not formally approve those mineral licences. Rather, that was done by her Department. It would be helpful if the Minister were here to explain and expand on precisely her role, what say she has in the granting of licences and what questions she has asked her officials. I am afraid that we are not able to do that because she is not here. That is a shame. Our job as the official Opposition is to hold Ministers to account. I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect Ministers to come to the Chamber in Opposition time and answer those questions, but I will move on. I will respond to a few of the points. I know that Emma Sheerin is passionate about the Sperrins. She grew up there and no doubt cares a huge amount for them — I do not dispute that — but she appeared to indicate that a moratorium was not legally possible. It is important to say that, when the current Minister for the Economy was the Chair of the Economy Committee, that is exactly what she called for: a moratorium. She wrote to the then Economy Minister to ask for one. Now that she has that power, apparently she does not have it, or she is not able to put in place a moratorium. Separately, we are told that granting the licences is a way in which to get to a moratorium, if I am understanding it correctly, or that one cannot get to a moratorium without granting the licences. I am afraid that I am slightly none the wiser. We are being corrected, and we — the Opposition — are accused of taking cheap potshots and misunderstanding how the rules work. If that is true of us, it is also true of Save Our Sperrins, the campaign group that is vociferously opposed to the granting of those new licences and has said so publicly. It is all well and good to accuse the Opposition of taking a potshot —.

I will give way in a second. It is all well and good to accuse the Opposition of taking a potshot, but we are saying the same thing, or at least asking the same questions, as Save Our Sperrins.

I appreciate that, and I am glad that I gave way, but I am still none the wiser as to how that works precisely. I am afraid that the position appears to be as clear as mud, but I will move on to a couple of the other points.

They are prospecting licences, but it is true that the granting of prospecting licences creates momentum. That is part of the point: once a prospecting licence is created, a situation is then created in which someone will say, "Look, we found this mineral". I take the point that was made that that excludes the extraction of gold and silver, because that is done through a separate process, but there is very real public opposition in this part of our island to continued extraction. People are very serious about that. To be fair, Diana Armstrong made an honest argument that was effectively in favour of mining and quarrying, which she sees as economic activity. The motion does not say that we should shut down every slate or limestone quarry in the North. It is important not to conflate the agreed and licensed extraction of building materials by quarry companies with prospecting for rare earth materials, about which there are real public health and environmental concerns in local communities. That matters because this place has an abysmal environmental record, which became worse last week when a consultation on the nutrients action plan was not supported. I repeat that this is not an assault on farmers. Farmers deserve to be consulted and are vital to who we are. However, the nutrients action plan is a key step, whether it is implemented exactly as it stands or reviewed after the consultation. Sinn Féin, the DUP, the TUV and the Ulster Unionists voted to bin even the consultation last week, while Lough Neagh, which is our greatest natural resource, becomes an open-air cesspool. Do I have an extra minute, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker?

I will. I return to the motion by saying this: if one natural resource — Lough Neagh — is being left because most of the Executive think, "It's fine. We don't need to do anything about it. We can let it drift into becoming, basically, an open-air cesspool", are we to trust that the Executive will take the Sperrins and other beautiful parts of our natural environment with the appropriate seriousness? I do not think that we have that level of trust, which is why we tabled motion. the We are serious about protecting our environment. Of course we want to see economic development and investment, but not at the cost of protecting our greatest natural resource, straight in the face of the expressed wishes of the local communities. I commend our motion to the Assembly.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:48 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