Debate contribution: Independent Environmental Protection Agency: Establishment
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew Muir on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew Muir
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 10 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Independent Environmental Protection Agency: Establishment
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5225324
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Opposition motion on the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland, and I thank the leader of the Opposition for tabling it. From the outset, I make it clear that I have long held the view that Northern Ireland needs an independent EPA. That belief is rooted in the clear and growing evidence that our current environmental governance arrangements are not fit for purpose and are failing everyone. For too long, our environment and nature have suffered from a lack of robust protections. The consequences are visible to us all and are increasingly severe, from the crisis in Lough Neagh to waste crime, as exemplified by one of Europe's largest illegal dumps at Mobuoy. The independent review of environmental governance, led by Dr Viviane Gravey and supported by Diane Ruddock and John McCallister, has provided a comprehensive and evidence-based road map for reform. I thank the independent panel and the related stakeholder reference group for their rigorous work, which included the consideration of 590 responses to a public call for evidence, three public events and extensive stakeholder engagement across Northern Ireland, Great Britain and Ireland. The panel's final report, which was published on 21 October, sets out 32 recommendations under four key themes: clarity and coherence; meaningful independence; better compliance; and transparency and accountability. Those recommendations aim to deliver a governance system that is robust, trustworthy and capable of meeting our environmental obligations whilst restoring public confidence. At the heart of the report is a recommendation to establish an independent environmental protection agency as a non-departmental public body sponsored by DAERA. The proposed EPA would be responsible for:
"oversight of air and water quality, waste management, nature and biodiversity and the marine environment".
The model would ensure a clear separation between policymaking and regulation, aligning with best practice across these islands. It would also provide the necessary independence to build public trust whilst maintaining accountability to the Assembly. Northern Ireland is currently the only region — the only region — in the UK and Ireland without an independent EPA. I fail to see how any Member here today would want to continue to support that position. The absence of an independent EPA undermines public trust and confidence, weakens compliance and hampers our ability to deliver meaningful environmental outcomes.
Yes.
I find it strange that Members of a party that purports to have a concern about other issues believe that we should have a different set-up in Northern Ireland when it comes to the environment or on rights and equality for people in Northern Ireland. The costs of inaction and of not having an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland are stark. The Mobuoy illegal waste site will cost between £100 million and £700 million to remediate. This year alone, my Department is spending over £17 million to address the crisis in Lough Neagh. Those figures illustrate the economic consequences of failed governance and non-compliance. Inaction also leads to degraded ecosystems, public health risks and lost opportunities for sustainable growth. We must act decisively to reverse that trend. I am therefore seeking Executive agreement to establish an independent environmental protection agency as a non-departmental public body of DAERA. A public consultation will follow securing agreement, after which firm policy proposals will be brought back to the Executive to enable legislation to be drafted and implemented. I am fully committed to progressing that work at pace, but in order to do so, I need urgent support from my Executive and Assembly colleagues. The window of opportunity is tight, but, with swift decisions, full and unconditional backing and a willingness to work at pace from both the Executive and the Assembly, we can legislate for an independent EPA in this mandate. We need to see some of the current momentum and desire for change. How people vote on the motion is important. Aside from the recommendations on an independent environmental protection agency, the report makes a number of recommendations that fall within my Department. In parallel with our work to prepare an independent EPA, I will work with my officials to take forward those recommendations. Some aspects already align with ongoing work or our own plans for improvement. At this stage, I will address some concerns that were raised after my oral statement last week. I understand that Members will have concerns around the delay in establishing a new independent EPA. I assure you, however, that the review was critical to understanding the complex environmental governance landscape post EU exit and to charting a practical way forward. A key part of the new governance system will be to look at the functions of NIEA and other bodies and to remove any duplication. The overall intention is to streamline the new independent EPA and ensure that it is effective and efficient in order to, for example, allow a speedy response to planning applications. I am acutely aware of the shared environmental challenges across these islands. Pollution and environmental crimes do not respect borders. Through a new independent environmental protection agency, I want to foster a culture of improved collaboration in which we all work towards better environmental outcomes by sharing information and best practice. There are existing structures in place for that. I will seek to build on those through formal memorandums of understanding. On the funding issue, my officials will consider detailed costs to establish a new independent environmental protection agency and will bring formal proposals back on that in due course, if I get the green light to proceed with an independent environmental protection agency in principle. However, that should not be seen as a barrier at this early stage. What we need to agree is that the status quo is no longer sustainable. Funding issues can be worked through. The enabling legislation will include safeguards to protect against underfunding, similar to those that are in place for the Office for Environmental Protection, which replaced the role that was previously undertaken by the European Commission. We should have nothing to fear from an independent environmental protection agency. A regulator that operates independently should give greater confidence that issues are being tackled proportionately and regulation applied fairly. That is about more accountable regulation and, through that, creating a fair and more level playing field for all. The independent EPA will operate under a clear legislative framework, with oversight by an independent board and scrutiny mechanisms that are established by the Assembly. It will have a clear mission, with measurable environmental outcomes. I have been clear in the past that enforcement should be the last stage in the process to ensure compliance when all other options have failed. Education will play a crucial role in how we shape our governance structures going forward. Prevention is key to all that. If we can advise and guide as much as possible, and that brings about the change that is needed, we will not need to enforce. However, when pollution happens despite our best efforts to educate and inform, and regardless where the pollution comes from, we need to move swiftly to enforcement and to ensure that sufficient deterrents and resourcing are in place for that. I recognise that some Members have expressed scepticism about the creation of another public body. Let me be clear: this is not about bureaucracy; it is about delivering effective, accountable and independent environmental protection. There are many non-departmental public bodies throughout Northern Ireland that perform a vital role. This one should be no different. As I stated last week in my oral statement, this is a pivotal moment for Northern Ireland. I urge Members to put their support on the record, not just in principle but in practice in the voting Lobbies, so that we can move forward together in setting up an independent environmental protection agency. The people of Northern Ireland expect and deserve better environmental protection, greater accountability and a system that they can trust. I am committed to delivering that. I hope that the Assembly will join me in supporting the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency. As the Bucks Fizz song 'Making Your Mind Up' goes:
"Don't let your indecision take you from behind Trust your inner vision Don't let others change your mind ... soon you will find that there comes a time For making your mind up".
Tonight is the time for making your mind up.
1,409 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.07 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.95).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.06 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.95 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.02 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.76 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.12 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.05 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.05 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:45 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.