Debate contribution: Independent Environmental Protection Agency

Debate contribution by Mr Matthew O'Toole on 10 March 2026.

MLA

Mr Matthew O'Toole

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

10 March 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Independent Environmental Protection Agency

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5437030

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Hopefully — I am sure others hope so, too — I will not use all my 10 minutes, but I will not make that promise, because I might break it. I hope that our amendment adds to tonight's motion, because we entirely agree with most of the motion. It is one of the most urgent and unavoidable — some people in the Chamber want to avoid it — crises that this society faces that we have pushed our environment to what, I hope, is not the point of no return, although it feels very close to that. In his opening remarks, Eóin Tennyson pointed out two of the most clear-cut and striking examples of environmental violation that western Europe has seen. The first is the Mobuoy scandal, an extraordinarily disgusting and vast waste crime and one of the largest illegal dumps in Europe. There is still no plan for remediation, the cost is unbearably high, and there is no sense, although there have been criminal proceedings—.

Yes.

I am happy to accept that. It was not an implied criticism of the Minister. I was simply making a point about Mobuoy and that context because the motion refers to it. It is true that Mobuoy is one of the biggest waste crimes in recent European history. It is also true that Lough Neagh, one of the biggest bodies of fresh water in Europe, is degrading in front of our eyes every summer, and it could well happen again this year. We are faced with an almost sci-fi vision of environmental degradation. Those are two examples. One has been caused by long-term pollution from agricultural intensification and the loading of nutrients into our soil. That is undeniable, by the way. Before anybody says that it is an attack on farmers, it is not; it is a fact. Number two has come about through long-term underinvestment in our waste water infrastructure and, as the Minister correctly said, issues around NI Water being given a bye ball on pollution. Mobuoy showed unseriousness when it came to environmental crime, allowing that kind of crime to pass if not unremarked then certainly with a much more liberal wave of the hand than there would be in other places. It was because of that, frankly, appalling and unsustainable context that there was a commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' to deliver an independent environmental protection agency. As has been said, that is something that exists in statute in other parts of these islands. It does not prevent farming; it does not prevent decisions being made on planning; and it does not prevent economic development. It means that, in law, there is a proper environmental watchdog to ensure that environmental standards are met and to defend our environment. We have simply not defended and protected our environment in Northern Ireland — the evidence is in front of us — and the public know that and are appalled by it. The Lough Neagh eel is not just one of the greatest natural resources but one of the great culinary resources of this part of the world. Lough Neagh eel fishermen have barely been able to fish for the past few years because of the state that we have allowed the lough to get into. That is an appalling indictment of us as politicians and the system that we have allowed to develop. It is because of all of that that there should no longer be an argument about whether we have an independent environmental protection agency; the question should be how and when we deliver one. The SDLP has tabled an amendment to the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. That is a relatively arcane Bill, but it has a broad and miscellaneous scope. We hope that we will be able to debate that, but I do not know. We may or may not. If we are able to do so, we will be using our time in constructive opposition by trying to move this forward. I agree with what was said about the DUP's know-nothing attitude towards the environment. It is utterly short-sighted when it comes to the environment. It has absolutely no seriousness when it comes to the issue, and its blocking of an independent environmental protection agency is indefensible and needs to end. The purpose of our amendment is to add to the motion and clarify a point of accountability. We have just had a strange debate on the Hospital Parking Charge Bill in which Members from one party appeared to indicate that they supported a Bill and then voted against it. We had a slightly surreal refusal of Members to accept accountability. It matters that, when we take office, we accept accountability. Let me say this clearly: I accept that the Environment Minister wants to make progress and that he has reform in mind, and I know that he wants to create an independent environmental protection agency. My question, which is a respectful one, is why that was not secured in the Programme for Government. It should have been. That would have been a reasonable ask for the Minister, his party leader and their party. They could have asked for that to be included in the Programme for Government. Indeed, it would not have been unreasonable for them to say that their participation in the Executive would be time-limited, because they may well have wanted to enter opposition had that promise not been kept.

It would not have been unreasonable, given that that is how voluntary coalitions work in other parts of the world, to make that ask.

Yes, but I do not know whom to give way to, because there have been two requests.

If you did, I am happy to defer to you on that, Minister. It certainly is not in the Programme for Government, but, if you are telling me that you made a specific request for that to be in it, I will take you at your word. I certainly acknowledge that you want an independent environmental protection agency. My question is how deep that ask was and what conditionality you offered. For example, did you say that you and your party would participate in the Executive only on the basis of achieving an independent environmental protection agency?

Of course, through the Chair.

It would not have been unreasonable to say that your participation in the Executive would be contingent on a number of delivery items. I will give way to whomever.

The Member has made a sharp political intervention; that is fine, because there is a degree of politics in all of us. That is not what is in the amendment. We are not debating things that happened in the Executives of the past.

We are in opposition now; you are in the Executive.

Since Mr Tennyson raised the point, the Alliance Party was given an extraordinary mandate in the 2022 election. It was an extraordinary election. We know that because it came in part at our expense. I congratulate you on that, but, since you pressed me on it, I think that the public have a right to ask what the Alliance Party used that mandate for. One of the things that it has not achieved is an independent environmental protection agency. That is not me being cruel; that is me holding parties to account. That is our job in opposition, and we make no apology for it. I do not think that it would have been unreasonable or intemperate for the Alliance Party to have said, "We will participate in the Executive on the basis of achieving an independent environmental protection agency" and perhaps one or two other things, including progress on Stormont reform. Bear in mind that the participation of neither the Alliance Party nor the Ulster Unionist Party, because they were not in a position to nominate a First Minister or deputy First Minister, would have prevented an Executive from being formed, so the accusation of what is sometimes termed ransom politics would not have been applicable in that case. It simply would have been a party with a vastly increased mandate and a specific set of manifesto proposals, including an independent environmental protection agency and Stormont reform, seeking to use its increased mandate to achieve that in government. That would have been an entirely legitimate thing to do, but it was not done. That is the point that I am making. I now move back to the issue in the motion. The DUP is blocking the proposal at the Executive. I look forward to hearing its argument for continuing to block it, other than simply a thran, "No, nothing" desire to get its own way and block any progress. The public out there, including people from all backgrounds — unionist, nationalist and those who simply do not care one way or the other — want our environment to be protected. They know that we have allowed our biodiversity to slip into disrepair. They know that we are one of the most nature-depleted places in Europe. They know that industrial agricultural intensification has led to environmental degradation. To be absolutely clear, that is not any type of criticism of the farming community; it is simply to say that agricultural intensification has happened. All the people out there see those things and see the DUP's blocking progress. They wonder whether we can ever make progress at Stormont. The DUP is the party that wants to maintain the status quo, but it also wants to make the status quo dysfunctional and unable to deliver. I see that, very charmingly, Mr Buckley is looking at his watch. People will be looking at their watch in relation to the constitutional status quo if you and your party continue to block progress on important things, such as environmental protection. I have made my point and will leave it at that.

1,648 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:13 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