NI minister slams ‘vile homophobic, racist and misogynistic' on social media over Nutrients Action Programme
Andrew Muir was pressed to abandon the proposed plan for 2026-29 which is currently out for consultation during questions for his department in the Assembly on Tuesday.
He was warned the proposals, aimed at improving water quality and the wider environment by reducing and preventing pollution caused or induced by nutrients from agricultural sources, could destroy the farming industry.
Opponents to the plan have argued that the measures currently proposed could devastate agriculture, reduce livestock numbers and undermine food security.
They have called on Mr Muir to bring forward a policy based on genuine partnership rather than punitive policies which risk the viability of our agricultural industry
Mr Muir told MLAs there is a requirement arising from the Lough Neagh Action Plan and also the Environmental Improvement Plan to review the Nutrients Action Plan.
He said it is about ensuring both financial and environmental sustainability, and emphasised they are currently undertaking a consultation on draft proposals, and that no final decisions have been taken.
Mr Muir also expressed concern that there is 'a lot of misinformation' around the proposals, and said the social media commentary around the plan in recent weeks has been disgraceful'.
'There's been misogynistic comments against officials in my department,' he said.
'There's been racist comments in relation to people that we are very, very fortunate to have working within our agri-food sector.
'And not for a very long time have I seen such vile homophobic comments about myself. I am a gay man, and I am proud to be a gay man, and it has no relevance whatsoever to the Nutrients Action Programme nor my ability to do this job.'
The consultation on the revised Nutrients Action Programme 2026-2029 is set to continue to July 24 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
19 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Newport's proposed roads to go back to 30mph speed limit
Not much common sense at all, just tinkering here and there with some roads. Newport council, please could you show more common sense than the Welsh Assembly Members who implemented this 20mph speed limit, get Newport moving again, and put all main roads through Newport back to 30mph. When you drive through Newport at the present moment in time its like being in a funeral cortege. Norman Plaisted, Newport.
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
In this time of rancour, fear and war, peaceful nuclear cooperation in the Middle East is still possible
Ten years ago, after the Iran nuclear deal, I wrote in the Guardian about the urgent need for global nuclear disarmament – starting with the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction. A decade later, as our region teeters on the edge of catastrophe, that call is no longer just noble – it is essential. The proposal was not a new Iranian initiative. As far back as 1974, Iran proposed a zone free from nuclear weapons in the Middle East at the UN, and was soon joined by Egypt. That proposal passed overwhelmingly in the general assembly. After Iraq's use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, the initiative was expanded in 1990 to cover all weapons of mass destruction. But for half a century, progress has been blocked by Israel and its main patron, the United States. This paralysis is no accident. Despite overwhelming annual support in the UN general assembly and repeated commitments in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), the Middle East remains one of the only regions on Earth without a nuclear weapon-free framework. More than 100 non-aligned states at the 1995 NPT review and extension conference made progress towards such a zone a condition of the treaty's indefinite extension. Yet 30 years on, little has changed. In fact, the situation has deteriorated, showing that while possession of nuclear weapons usually leads to reckless adventurism, such weapons in no way assure success, provide invincibility or safety for citizens. Recent unlawful military action by the nuclear-armed Israel – which is not party to the NPT – against Iran's internationally monitored nuclear facilities brought our region dangerously close to an abyss. The failure of Israel to achieve its unwarranted objectives, and the inability of the US to bring Iran to its knees, could and still can engulf this region and by extension the entire world in a forever war. Enough is enough. We must take the future of our region's security into our own hands. It is time for the Middle East and north Africa to move beyond empty rhetoric and towards genuine regional cooperation – based on mutual respect and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. That is why we propose the creation of the Middle East Network for Atomic Research and Advancement, or Menara, which fittingly means 'lighthouse' in Arabic. Menara would be a regional body designed to facilitate peaceful nuclear cooperation among its members. Open to all qualified states in the Middle East and north Africa, to join, countries must reject the development or deployment of nuclear weapons and commit to mutual verification of their compliance. In return, Menara would help them benefit from peaceful nuclear technology, including energy production, medicine, agriculture and scientific research. Such a body is not a substitute for disarmament – it is a step towards it. Regional nuclear cooperation, with strong safeguards and mutual oversight, can strengthen non-proliferation and enhance energy security without enabling militarisation. It has long been argued that progress on regional disarmament must wait for Israel to disarm. But a regime that has shown no regard for international legitimacy by committing international crimes such as apartheid, genocide and, most recently, mass starvation will hardly be influenced by this negative pressure – it certainly has not been for more than 50 years. And its perilous nuclear arsenal has been and will always remain the gravest threat to international non-proliferation and regional and global peace and stability. Holding hundreds of millions of people hostage to one regime's nuclear arsenal and political impunity is a recipe for permanent instability. We must find a new way forward. Menara would also help reframe the nuclear debate in the region. For too long, nuclear issues have been cast solely in terms of risk and threat. But nuclear science also offers solutions – to the climate crisis, water scarcity, food security and energy diversification. As oil and gas reserves dwindle, nuclear energy will be vital for regional growth and sustainability. Menara can make this future a shared, secure reality. Here's how it would work. Menara would coordinate research, education and development across member states. It would support joint ventures in fields ranging from uranium enrichment and waste management to nuclear fusion and medicine. Members would share facilities, pool expertise and ensure transparency through a joint regulatory board. Contributions would be proportional to each country's capacity, but every member would benefit. The network would be headquartered in one of the participating countries, with branch offices and potentially shared enrichment facilities in others. Oversight would be conducted by a board of governors composed of national representatives, with international observers from the UN, the security council and the International Atomic Energy Agency invited to participate. Crucially, Menara would include robust mutual safeguards to prevent the diversion of materials for military use. Today, more than ever, we in the Middle East and north Africa region have been woken up to a collective cognisance of the horrifying picture of our future unless we seize this moment. We know that mistrust runs deep in our region. Iran has its grievances and so do others. But history must not define our destiny. We call on the nations of the Middle East and north Africa to endorse Menara and begin formal negotiations on its structure, mandate and membership criteria. A regional summit – under the auspices of the UN and with support from global powers – could lay the foundation. Such a step would not only reduce the risk of nuclear conflict but also offer a model for cooperation in a fractured world. The status quo is unsustainable. The nightmare of escalation and its inherent potential to cause proliferation is no longer hypothetical; it is dangerously close to becoming real. But there is still time to choose a different path. Menara can be a beacon guiding us towards a future where the Middle East is no longer a battleground for nuclear brinkmanship, but a leader in peace, progress and responsible energy. The time to act is now. Javad Zarif is associate professor of global studies at the University of Tehran. He was Iran's foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator from 2013-21. His co-author is Mohsen Baharvand, who was Iran's deputy foreign minister and ambassador to the UK Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
The Independent
a day ago
- The Independent
Is Keir Starmer already U-turning on Palestine?
The statement Keir Starmer made on Tuesday announcing the government's intention to recognise the state of Palestine sounded as if it had been drafted and re-drafted so many times that no one thought to check if it still made grammatical or logical sense. Hence the initial confusion: did this mean Britain will recognise Palestine or not? The statement said the government would do so at the United Nations General Assembly in September 'unless…' the Israeli government did four things. But one of the conditions listed was a commitment to a two-state solution, something to which Benjamin Netanyahu would never agree. So it seemed clear that, whatever the deliberate ambiguities of the rest of the statement, recognition would be going ahead in September. It was a victory for those members of the cabinet who had been pushing for it – David Lammy, Shabana Mahmood, Yvette Cooper, Wes Streeting and others – with the support of the silent majority of Labour MPs. Not that there was any triumphalism – unless you count Emily Thornberry, Labour chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, saying: 'I think it's great news' – because the situation in Gaza is so serious and the chances of recognition making a difference on the ground are so small. But there was no question that this was an important shift in government policy that had been brought about by quiet pressure behind the scenes from the Parliamentary Labour Party. Then questions started to be asked about the rest of the prime minister's statement: about the demand that Hamas release the hostages and the phrase 'no one side will have a veto' on the government's final decision in September. Did that mean that recognition of Palestine would be conditional on the release of the hostages? When Starmer was asked, in a short encounter with journalists today, he wouldn't give a Yes or No answer to that question, which I take to be the equivalent of 'No'. So I think British recognition will go ahead, unless something dramatic happens over the next month, such as Netanyahu ceasing to be prime minister of Israel. I don't think Starmer wanted to make this change. But I think he was going to do it before Emmanuel Macron changed French policy on recognition last week. Macron set the context, and Mark Carney, the leader of the third G7 nation to make the switch, confirmed it with his announcement last night. What mattered above all was the state of opinion among Labour MPs. Starmer can remember what happened to Tony Blair in July 2006 – and if he can't, Jonathan Powell, his national security adviser, who was Blair's chief of staff, can remind him. That was when Israel responded to Hezbollah's killing of two Israeli soldiers by invading Lebanon. Labour MPs wanted Blair to condemn this 'disproportionate' response. Blair refused. Labour MPs wrote letters demanding a change of leadership. Tom Watson, a junior defence minister, resigned. By September, Blair was visiting a north London academy school to announce that the imminent annual Labour conference would be his last as prime minister – although he didn't actually leave office for another nine months. Starmer, after a year in Downing Street, is in a similar position to Blair after nine years. Blair, having already said he wouldn't fight another election, refused to bow to his party. 'If I had condemned Israel, it would have been more than dishonest,' Blair wrote in his memoir. 'It would have undermined the world view I had come to hold passionately. So I didn't.' Starmer cannot afford such a devil-may-care attitude, so he has yielded to pressure from his MPs. There have been some attempts to explain the shift in his position that I think are not quite right. He is trying to head off the Corbyn-Sultana party, it is said, especially in constituencies, such as his own, with a significant Muslim vote. These are factors, of course, although the Corbynites are not going to be assuaged by recognition of Palestinian statehood – Zarah Sultana thinks Starmer belongs in The Hague, presumably for the crime of disagreeing with her. But the main reason Starmer has shifted his position is because Labour MPs demanded it. No prime minister can defy their parliamentary party for long on an issue that they care about. That is why Starmer U-turned on the winter fuel payment and on disability benefits, and it is why he has U-turned on this. Whatever you may think of the right or wrong of the final position – and I can guess what Blair's view would be on each of them – the reason for it is that it is what the majority of Labour MPs want. They want to recognise Palestine because they think it is a way to try to end the conflict in Gaza. Some of them may want to appease their constituents, but most of them are sincere in their horror of this unequal war – in which they reflect British public opinion generally. Whatever anyone thinks of Starmer's decision, they should not be surprised by his instinct for survival.
