Debate contribution: Lough Neagh

Debate contribution by Miss Michelle McIlveen on 9 September 2025.

MLA

Miss Michelle McIlveen

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

9 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Lough Neagh

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5086663

Read the official Assembly record

Text

We can agree across the Chamber that we are concerned about the return of blue-green algae at Lough Neagh and other sites across Northern Ireland and the impact that it has had on many, including the eel fishery. We also agree that all necessary actions should be taken to address the problems. Where we do not agree is in the approach adopted by the Minister and his Department, nor do we agree, unsurprisingly, that the motion calling for the NAP consultation to be withdrawn was misguided. The SDLP appears to have come to the Chamber today to patronise us but seems to forget that our motion pointed out fundamental flaws in the consultation and called for genuine partnership to develop workable and sustainable proposals that would address the sources of pollution. Those flaws included the failure to co-design proposals with key stakeholders, including the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU), the huge cost implications to the agrisector — £40 million in new costs, £33 million for low-emission slurry-spreading equipment (LESSE) alone and another £7 million for phosphorus separation systems at anaerobic digester plants. That does not include the £3·6 million each year for inspections, databases and added bureaucracy. Those are only basic costings and do not reflect the true economic impact, as that work still has not been carried out by DAERA. Further to that, the failure to carry out a proper economic assessment to go along with the proposals; phosphorus balances fail to recognise the economic realities faced by our farmers; the introduction of buffer strips, reducing the land available for productive use and driving up land prices; the lack of peer-reviewed scientific evidence to underpin the proposals; and the failure to evaluate and incorporate current schemes, such as the soil nutrient health scheme and the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry (SULS) project, which were designed to provide solutions to the industry to help with nutrient redistribution within Northern Ireland. All were totally ignored by the NAP proposals. Genuine co-design is where you need to bring people together and bring them with you, and, in doing that, you are much more likely to have buy-in and some success. Workable proposals also need to be evidence-based and not ideologically driven. The approach of the Minister and the Department has been to punish farmers while ignoring others, such as Northern Ireland Water, industry and construction. We know that the SDLP has abandoned its position of supporting our agrisector, despite what Mr O'Toole said in his opening remarks. That was clear in how it voted on the NAP proposals. It is further clear in its new proposals to introduce an agri-tax. As if farmers are not finding it tight enough due to the actions of the Labour Party in Government, now its sister party, the SDLP, wants to stick the boot in even more. How much more does the SDLP think farmers can take before the industry completely collapses?

Absolutely. The SDLP has also totally ignored the numerous debates that we have had in the Chamber over the past year. Rising costs, inheritance tax changes, farm payments, ever tighter and costly regulations — and now it wants the agriculture sector to pay even more while ignoring Northern Ireland Water and industry. There are solutions to the blue-green algae issue. They are cross-sectoral and do not involve singling out the farming industry.

No, if you do not mind. They involve providing collaborative leadership and support, not knee-jerk punitive measures that will have a devastating impact on our rural communities and our local economy. It is worth reiterating the DUP's position on the matter. We support a multi-agency, cross-sectoral response. We also support serious action on waste water treatment, including strict enforcement against deliberate polluters. We do not support the scapegoating of farmers. We have consistently seen an imbalance in the approach to environmental protection, and, sadly, the motion plays into that imbalance. Given the actions of the Minister subsequent to our motion, it was clear from his actions, if not his words, that, by establishing the stakeholder group, he recognises that consultation was premature. That group should have been established beforehand to help to develop the NAP proposals, not to patch them up retrospectively. It might be useful if the Minister took the opportunity today to acknowledge that he got it wrong in jumping the gun with the consultation and that genuine partnership working is the best way forward. It is disappointing that the SDLP does not recognise that. Instead, it decided to conflate two issues today, and, as a result of that, we are unable to support the motion.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:05 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