Call for urgent cross-party action to save Lough Neagh
The lough has been blighted with blue-green algae in recent summers, with noxious blooms covering large swathes of the surface.
Advertisement
However Gary McErlain, chairman of the Lough Neagh Partnership, said the devastation this week following recent warm weather is the worst he has seen in 40 years.
Lough Neagh at Ballyronan (Lough Neagh Partnership/PA)
Mr McErlain said urgent cross-party action is needed to save Lough Neagh.
'It is not news that Lough Neagh is in the midst of an unprecedented ecological crisis but with the weather providing the blue-green algae with the perfect conditions to bloom, this is an emergency that demands urgent and united political leadership,' he said.
'I believe the time for talking is over. In more than 40 years I have not witnessed the devastation on the lough that I am seeing today.'
Advertisement
Nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural fertiliser running off fields and from wastewater treatment are said to be a contributory factor in the blue-green algae blooms.
The spread of the invasive zebra mussel species is also understood to have played a role in the blooms, as they have made the water clearer, allowing more sunlight to penetrate, stimulating more algal photosynthesis.
Climate change is another factor as water temperatures rise.
The Stormont Executive last year launched an action plan to deal with the environmental crisis at the lough.
Advertisement
Mr McErlain said all parties should enter into constructive engagement with Agriculture and Environment Minister Andrew Muir regarding the implementation of the proposed nutrient action plan.
'It is plain to see that the health of the lough is deteriorating at an alarming rate, threatening not only the delicate balance of its natural ecosystem but also the communities, livelihoods and cultural heritage that depend upon it,' he said.
'For too long, responsibility for Lough Neagh has been fragmented, with agencies and departments working in isolation and often without the resources or mandate to make meaningful progress.
'What is needed now is joined-up thinking, decisive action, and a clear solution that places the immediate, short and long-term health of the lough at its centre.
Advertisement
'The people who live around Lough Neagh, who rely on it for recreation, fishing, tourism and water supply, deserve to see that those elected to serve them are capable of rising above party politics to work together for the common good.
'I fear that if we fail to act collectively and urgently, the damage to Lough Neagh could quickly become irreversible, with devastating consequences for biodiversity, the local economy and our shared natural heritage.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Politicians making mischief over asylum hotels are in for an unwelcome surprise
The High Court's ruling that asylum seekers must be moved out of the Bell Hotel in Epping leaves Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, with a nasty headache. The small boats keep on coming, and, under the law, asylum seekers must be housed somewhere while their cases are assessed. The Home Office was behind the curve on the legal action by Tory-led Epping Forest District Council, issuing a last-minute plea to no avail. There is gloom among ministers, who fear a dangerous precedent has been set; they are privately bemused that the ruling was based on the hotel owner's failure to obtain a change of use permission under planning regulations. Ministers fear the ruling will encourage more protests outside other asylum hotels, creating an opening for the far right. The ruling shines an unwelcome spotlight on the small boats crisis. In fact, the government has had a reasonable run on this nightmarish issue in recent weeks, announcing a raft of initiatives in the fallow summer period, including the potentially game-changing "one in, one out" returns agreement with France. Today, Dan Jarvis, the security minister, hoped to highlight a returns deal with Iraq, but his media round was dominated by asylum hotels. He struggled to spell out what his 'other more appropriate accommodation' for migrants might be if more have to leave them. The Conservatives and Reform UK are making mischief, encouraging other local authorities to take legal action aimed at closing asylum hotels in their areas. Tory-run Broxbourne is already following Epping Forest's lead. The 10 authorities run by Reform will doubtless do the same. Nigel Farage has called for 'peaceful protests' outside the hotels to 'put pressure' on councils to go to law. This is divisive and irresponsible: if the far right again exploits such demonstrations, it will be nothing to do with Farage, of course. The Tories are enjoying the government's embarrassment, and their hypocrisy knows no bounds. The number of asylum hotels peaked at 402 under the Sunak government, when up to 56,000 people were housed in them. Today, 210 of the hotels house 32,000 people at a cost of about £5m a day. Labour has pledged to close them all by 2029, but the short-term pressures have now suddenly got worse. Sensible Tories know their party is guilty of double standards. A revealing WhatsApp exchange leaked to ConservativeHome shows that some Tory MPs complained about their party's anti-Labour attack ad criticising the 'huge list of freebies and perks' allegedly enjoyed by people in asylum hotels – because asylum seekers enjoyed the same standards under the Tory government. Lewis Cocking, the new MP for Broxbourne, wrote: 'This makes us look silly as we gave them all this too, which is why we are in the mess we are in today.' Kevin Hollinrake, the Tory chair, agreed with the criticism but didn't withdraw the ad. This goes to the heart of an intense Tory debate about how far the party should apologise for its mistakes in power on issues like immigration and the economy. Some party figures think the Tories will not get a hearing from voters until Kemi Badenoch makes a big bang mea culpa. But Rachel Maclean, the party's director of strategy, claims: 'We've done the mea culpas, we've done the apologies, we've done all that.' I hadn't noticed, and, more importantly, neither has the public. There is little sign the Tories have learnt lessons. Incredibly, Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, responded to the Epping ruling by calling on Labour to bring back the Tories' discredited Rwanda scheme. He is flogging a dead horse that would never have run even if last year's general election had not intervened. It's not easy for Badenoch. A messy tit-for-tat dispute ensued after she distanced her party from the Liz Truss mini-Budget by claiming Labour was making 'even bigger mistakes.' This half-hearted apology didn't stop the ever-unrepentant Truss from accusing Badenoch of repeating 'spurious narratives' to 'divert from the real failures of 14 years of Conservative government in which her supporters are particularly implicated.' Badenoch herself was not entirely absent from the scene of the crime: at the time, s he praised the Truss mini-Budget. I don't think the Tory leader will be taken seriously by voters until she makes a fuller admission of the party's mistakes in 14 years in office. Saying ad nauseam that her party is 'under new leadership' won't cut it. Nor can the Tories rely on an anti-Labour tide to sweep them back to power because voters have somewhere else to go – to Farage.
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Short-term fix to a bigger crisis': Readers react to Epping asylum hotel ruling
Independent readers are divided over the High Court ruling that asylum seekers must be moved out of The Bell Hotel in Epping, with many seeing it as a fraught and short-term fix to a wider housing and migration crisis. Many argued the judgement sets a dangerous precedent, effectively rewarding protests and unrest by closing hotels, and leaving asylum seekers displaced without proper alternatives. Others warned that the decision risks emboldening far-right groups, who would see disruptive tactics as a way to influence local planning and policy. But some commenters backed the court's decision, saying local people had been ignored for too long while their towns and services absorbed sudden changes without consultation. 'Ordinary UK citizens are sick of being ignored while resources are stretched thin,' said one reader, echoing widespread frustration that communities feel powerless over decisions made in Westminster. Meanwhile, however, several readers stressed that immigration is essential to the UK's economy, especially in an ageing society, while others called for safe and legal asylum routes to end the small boats crossings. Critics of Reform and Nigel Farage accused them of exploiting the crisis for political gain, while pointing out that both Tory and Labour governments had failed to address the backlog. Here's what you had to say: This is no victory for Epping The government are now actively fast-tracking migrants from hotels to HMOs all across the country. As a landlord with two of these types of property, the temptation of a lease from Serco is getting far too hard not to take. I approximate that landlords will get an extra £2,000–£5,000 per year to lease to the government. Not only that, you don't have to ever find a tenant or look after the property as Serco completely take over the management and maintenance duties. These properties have a great value to society, as they are frequently used by split families, where fathers can't afford a full-price rent or mortgage. These places give them time to get back on their feet and live well, whilst paying maintenance. Also, young single people who don't have a strong family network – it's their only way to afford any accommodation. These people are being squeezed out as more properties are turned over to the government. 227detius Ordinary UK citizens are sick of being ignored People in towns like Epping are exhausted. They never asked for their local hotel to be turned into an asylum hostel, never got a say, and yet they're the ones left living with the consequences – rising tension, fear, and the sense their community is being changed without their consent. Ordinary UK citizens are sick of being ignored while resources are stretched thin and foreign nationals are prioritised over them. This isn't about hate – it's about fairness, safety, and respect for the people who actually live here. The High Court ruling is a rare moment where local voices have finally been heard, and many feel it's long overdue. RFA They are asylum seekers, not migrants They are asylum seekers and cannot be called migrants. I have seen some people in hotels where they seem lost. What they need is a place to sleep and be able to eat their nation's dishes, and hotels are not aware of what food they eat. On top of that, hotels hire people who speak their language to learn their taste. If they can buy stuff themselves, that will reduce costs for government considerably. Once their case is finalised, they can start work and won't be a burden to government. TotiCalling The far-right create the problems they rail against So, right-wingers who voted in a right-wing party to stop asylum seekers being housed in run-down empty homes across the country that locals didn't want to live in, and house them in hotels instead, have won a victory against the policy they created. It's endless. The far-right create a problem, then rail against it, then by their actions create a new problem that they then blame on others and rail against that. If the UK stops accepting asylum seekers, which is what the anti-immigrant groups want, countries that border conflict zones may also reject their international obligation, leading to many times more asylum seekers heading to the UK where they will just go underground and untracked. It could also potentially damage our relationships with trading partners that do take asylum seekers and undermine our moral position that supports our global trading and strategic interests. But hey, why look at potential problems when you can raise a pitchfork and kick off. BrotherChe Farage is stirring up the crisis Professional agitator Farage is stirring up the crisis for political gain! Reform has NO policies but 'stop the boats' – a problem Labour inherited from the Tories. However, it seems the right-wing media are pushing Farage and Reform as they are the party of the establishment, who would deregulate Britain – only an advantage for the richest few. The small boats crisis also, as giving Farage a single-issue rhetoric, masks the large legal migration that happened under the TORIES – and we are not told how large it is now! Mintman Questionable judgement A questionable judgement. It says to local communities if you don't want these asylum hotels/refugees in your communities, you can protest on the grounds it might make it unsafe for your children on their way home from school, and you get the council to shut them down. You just have to make a fuss on behalf of your children. chrish Playing a very dangerous game The left-wing political establishment is playing a very dangerous game, bringing people into the country in this way and planting them in the middle of settled communities – and at great expense. The political establishment might think they are provoking the far-right, but in reality they are provoking ordinary people, many of whom have fallen on hard times. If they carry on like this, it could get very ugly. Mark Reform don't do solutions I see Reform claiming credit for this judgement. I don't see any practical solutions from Reform as to how to tackle this problem. In fact, it seems Reform don't do solutions. While the number of asylum seekers held in hotels etc is now one for Labour to solve, it should be remembered who was responsible for this backlog to build – the last government. JRiley Immigration is here to stay Some people blame Tony Blair for embracing a policy of high immigration. However, the truth is that during the Blair years, net migration was generally small but increased to between 200,000 and 300,000 per year in 2004 (Migration Policy Institute). However, in the post-Brexit years net migration rose to between 600,000 to 900,000 per year (ONS). The UK is a rapidly ageing country and cannot function without immigrants. So, immigration is here to stay and people should be grateful for that, especially pensioners and those on benefits, because immigrants pay taxes that allow the government to pay pensions and benefits. Pomerol95 Kicking the can down the road So the far-right start to riot, and their targets are punished and moved away? Makes sense. I'd rather we get rid of the far-right that are ruining the town. Good job on kicking the can down the road a bit. Bobertson If you don't like immigration, don't cheer invasions A large proportion of recent asylum seekers come from countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya – all countries which have been reduced to ruin by invasions which most of these people enthusiastically supported. If you don't like immigration, don't vote for people like Tony Blair or Lord Snooty Cameron, don't cheer on "Our Boys" when they go rampaging around the world! envious Safe routes are needed Genuine refugees need SAFE routes that the last Tory government took away, and a reintroduction of such routes would probably eliminate the small boats problem. Christopher1959
Daily Mail
36 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Rachel Reeves' 'mansion tax' plan: What is capital gains tax, who pays and what could change?
In the latest furore over Labour's plans for property taxes, Chancellor Rachel Reeves is reported to be considering charging some homeowners a levy if they sell their home and make a profit. It follows reports in the last few days that the Government is mulling over sweeping changes to stamp duty and council tax, in a bid to fill the £51billion fiscal black hole. At the moment, people don't have to pay tax if they sell the home they live in and the price has increased since they bought it - known in tax parlance as a 'capital gain'. But according to The Times, Reeves is considering changing this rules so they would have to pay this, if they made more than a certain amount of money. We explain what taxes people currently pay when selling property, how much they pay and what could potentially change. What is capital gains tax? Capital gains tax is levied on profits from assets including second homes, buy-to-let properties, stocks and shares and personal possessions. It is not currently charged when people sell their main home, which they live in full-time, but this is what Reeves is reported to be considering changing. It's important to note that it is only charged on increase in value or 'gain' made on the property or shares, not on the whole value. Everyone also gets an annual capital gains tax-free allowance of £3,000, so any gains below this aren't taxed. How much is capital gains tax? It depends on which tax band the person is in. If you are a basic rate taxpayer, with an annual income of up to £50,271, you pay 18 per cent. If you are a higher or additional-rate taxpayer, earning £50,271 or more, you pay 24 per cent. Take, for example, a landlord who purchased a buy-to-let property for £200,000 and sold it a decade later for £230,000 - requiring them to pay capital gains tax under the current rules. They would only pay tax on the £30,000 increase in value. If they were a basic-rate taxpayer, this would be charged at 18 per cent. This would set their bill at £5,400. However, if they hadn't made any other capital gains that tax year, they could use their £3,000 annual allowance to cut the bill to £2,400. Selling costs such as an estate agent and solicitors can sometimes be deducted. What is private residence relief? Private residence relief is the name for the tax exemption which means those selling their main home don't pay capital gains tax, no matter how much it increases in value. This is what Rachel Reeves is said to be considering taking away, or making changes to. What is being proposed? According to The Times, people selling their home would now need to pay capital gains tax at the rates described above - but only if their home was above a certain price threshold. It is not yet known how much a property would need to be worth, or how much the 'gain' would need to be, for the home seller to be drawn into the tax net. The Times said a threshold of £1.5million would hit around 120,000 homeowners who are higher-rate taxpayers with capital gains tax bills of £199,973. At current rates, a home bought for £800,000 and sold for £1millon by a higher-rate taxpayer would attract a capital gains tax bill of £47,280, before any deductions. Who will it affect? Older homeowners looking to downsize could be hit especially hard, as well as anyone who has lived in their property for a long time or experienced big house price gains. Those who have stayed in the same home for decades and enjoyed large property price rises could find themselves hit with a bill worth tens or even hundreds of thousands. This could prevent them from downsizing at all. The average house price in London in 1980 was £25,732, according to the Land Registry. Today, that has jumped to about £561,000 - though many family-sized homes in areas of the capital that have experienced gentrification could be worth double that. If capital gains tax was charged at current rates, a basic rate-taxpayer couple selling a £561,000 home could face a tax bill of £114,180, after deducting £5,000 for selling costs. However, it may be that a home worth that much could fall under the threshold. Stephen Perkins, managing director at Norwich-based Yellow Brick Mortgages, said: 'I can see a lot of families in London being caught with this higher tax bill. 'It may push more wealthy tax contributors to exodus the UK, which is already a problem following the Chancellor's last budget.' Why is it controversial? Some are terming the increase a 'mansion tax' which punishes people who have worked hard to buy a nice home. Harps Garcha, director at Slough-based financial adviser Brooklyns Financial, told the news agency Newspage: 'The Government's plan will have a massive impact on London and the South East, where many middle-class families have sacrificed themselves for years to build wealth through their homes. 'These homeowners expected to rely on that equity in retirement by downsizing, yet they now face being taxed twice, first through stamp duty and then capital gains. 'Rather than rewarding prudence, this policy punishes those who have worked hard and planned responsibly for their future.' Property experts also say taxing homeowners could would gum up the property market, as people at the top end of the ladder would be less inclined to move. This could increase the number of older people in homes that are too big, and young families could struggle to upsize. If people were less likely to move because of the policy, this might even limit the amount of money the Treasury might raise from the tax. Tom Bill, head of UK residential research at estate agent Knight Frank, said: 'Anyone with a taxable gain would think twice before selling, which would reduce transaction numbers. 'The Government seems to want a predictable flow of revenue that is skewed towards the wealthiest homeowners. 'That would be best achieved by re-banding council tax rather than introducing transaction taxes that change behaviour in the most discretionary part of the property market to the point they fail to raise what is intended.' When could this change happen? This change is reported to be an announcement being tabled for the Autumn Budget, in October or November. It is unclear when the new rule, if it was announced, would come into effect. One potential problem is that any announcement could create a rush of people trying to sell their homes before the new tax was put in place, to avoid paying it. When Rachel Reeves announced an additional stamp duty levy on landlords last year, this came into effect immediately to stop people from doing this. What has changed already? In recent years, both Conservative and Labour governments have made the capital gains tax allowances less generous. The annual capital gains tax-free allowance was £12,300 until April 2023, which meant it was typically only levied on wealthier taxpayers. However, radical cuts to the CGT allowance - to £6,000 in spring 2023 and £3,000 from April 2024 - make it inevitable that many more people will now have to pay capital gains tax. Rachel Reeves also increased capital gains tax for stocks and shares investors in last year's Autumn Budget. The rate charged increased from 10 per cent to 18 per cent for basic rate taxpayers and 20 per cent to 24 per cent for those paying higher rates of tax. This brought them into line with the already higher levies on property. The Treasury's response The Treasury declined to comment to the Daily Mail on 'speculation' about future changes to tax policy. A spokesman said: 'As set out in the Plan for Change, the best way to strengthen public finances is by growing the economy – which is our focus. 'Changes to tax and spend policy are not the only ways of doing this, as seen with our planning reforms, which are expected to grow the economy by £6.8billion and cut borrowing by £3.4billion 'We are committed to keeping taxes for working people as low as possible, which is why at last autumn's Budget, we protected working people's payslips and kept our promise not to raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee National Insurance, or VAT.'
