Debate contribution: Lough Neagh

Debate contribution by Ms Diana Armstrong on 9 September 2025.

MLA

Ms Diana Armstrong

Party at the time

Ulster Unionist Party

Date

9 September 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Lough Neagh

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5086677

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Members who tabled the motion. People from all walks of life across Northern Ireland are concerned at the situation that is unfolding on Lough Neagh. They all want to have good-quality water in their inland waterways and, of course, in Lough Neagh, but I can say without a doubt that no one, for one moment, wants to play the blame game that some in the Chamber would have us play. We have to approach the problem with respect and understanding: respect for those who are already impacted on and understanding of the effect that any intended future actions will have on other stakeholders and sectors as we work towards having a plan to address the blue-green algae. If we are to move forward, it will require community and sector buy-in, not a top-down approach and virtue signalling in the House. It is therefore essential that we move past finding a scapegoat to understanding what is happening in Lough Neagh, because blaming farmers is too simple. Farming is but one spoke in a large wheel that is affecting the lough, yet, according to AgriSearch analysis, the initial NAP proposals that Minister Muir published would have generated annual losses of around £1·6 billion across agriculture in Northern Ireland, had they been implemented. It is not unique to Northern Ireland but a global problem. In Great Britain, Lake Windermere is impacted on by raw sewage. The Lough Neagh ecosystem is shaped by biology as well as chemistry: it is shaped by many inputs and many outputs. The warning signs on Lough Neagh have been visible for years, yet the relevant Departments have failed to take coordinated, preventative action. The presence of 836 storm overflows that discharge directly or indirectly into the Lough Neagh management area and its tributaries points to a broader systemic issue, one that implicates not just DAERA but the Department for Infrastructure, which is failing us all. It is also notable to acknowledge the invasive zebra mussels, the presence of which has changed the ecology by clarifying the water and shifting where and when the algae can grow. I will briefly mention the nutrients action programme, as it is important that I clarify things. I was against the plan, because it goes far beyond the original NAP, and the proposals would have had a devastating impact on the agri-food sector. The reality of the NAP was that the Minister's carrot was too small and his stick too big. The agri-food sector must be part of the solution and not be treated as the problem. For that reason, the UUP will vote against the motion. Lough Neagh is not a problem that can be solved by scapegoating one sector. The situation demands a multi-departmental response — something that has been lacking of late — and a clear strategy that has buy-in from all stakeholders.

476 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