Tom Buchanan
West Tyrone · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“However, the Bill must give hydro operators clarity and confidence, through a sustainable licensing framework with long-term regulatory certainty, to enable them to invest and upgrade, modernise and improve fish pass technology.”
“I note that quite a bit of work in the Bill falls to the Department with regard to monitoring, enforcement and scientific assessment, which will require adequate resourcing. <BR /> <BR />The Bill must strike the right balance between encouraging investment and protecting sensitive freshwater habitats.”
“I welcome the opportunity to say a few words at Second Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. It is overdue legislation, which touches on three interlinked systems: commercial fisheries; growing the aquaculture sector; and the wider water environment, with an ambition to modernise regulation while supporting susta…”
“<BR /> <BR />Hydro schemes and hydropower to produce clean energy that will contribute to decarbonisation targets must be catered for in the Bill, with a clear vision for their future expansion. Those are not abstract infrastructure projects but local assets that generate clean renewable energy while supporting employment in rural areas.”
“Minister, under your watch, many miles of posts and wire fencing were put up along the A5 western transport corridor. However, in the past few weeks, a good bit of that has been removed by a mechanical digger and pushed into a pile for dumping.”
“In reality, however, every notice, every new form and every new administrative step will be another cost to councils. We simply cannot keep relying on councils to pick up the cost. We cannot pretend that council budgets are elastic, with plenty of stretch left in them. As is the case in many other sectors, councils are under pressure.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,021 lines we hold for Tom Buchanan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 21.
“However, the Bill must give hydro operators clarity and confidence, through a sustainable licensing framework with long-term regulatory certainty, to enable them to invest and upgrade, modernise and improve fish pass technology. Hydro schemes are already delivering for rural communities, and with the right vision in the Bill, they can continue to deliver for many decades to come. The future of hydropower in Northern Ireland must be one of balance and clean energy generation alongside thriving river ecosystems. <BR /> <BR />While many of the new powers simply clarify or regularise existing rules, there is more work to be done on other areas of the Bill. I look forward to the Bill's scrutiny at Committee Stage and hope that it will result in something deliverable that will have the intended effect.”
“<BR /> <BR />Hydro schemes and hydropower to produce clean energy that will contribute to decarbonisation targets must be catered for in the Bill, with a clear vision for their future expansion. Those are not abstract infrastructure projects but local assets that generate clean renewable energy while supporting employment in rural areas. Across our waterways, small-scale hydro schemes create local skilled employment, support local supply chains, generate stable renewable energy and provide long-term economic benefit to rural areas that often struggle to attract investment. Those schemes show what is possible when environmental protection and economic development work hand in hand.”
“I note that quite a bit of work in the Bill falls to the Department with regard to monitoring, enforcement and scientific assessment, which will require adequate resourcing. <BR /> <BR />The Bill must strike the right balance between encouraging investment and protecting sensitive freshwater habitats. With many fishing families operating small businesses, any new licensing or reporting requirements must be fair and proportionate. Regulation to protect the environment must do so without crushing the livelihoods of our small fishing industry. It must also support community-based fisheries, while ensuring that local voices are heard in licensing and environmental decision-making, recognising that environmental protection and economic sustainability are not competing goals but go hand in hand.”
“I welcome the opportunity to say a few words at Second Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. It is overdue legislation, which touches on three interlinked systems: commercial fisheries; growing the aquaculture sector; and the wider water environment, with an ambition to modernise regulation while supporting sustainable economic activity in coastal and inland communities. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland's fisheries and aquaculture industries are facing pressure from sources such as stock levels in the Irish Sea and rising compliance costs for small boats. The Bill is an opportunity to bring coherence to a patchwork of outdated provisions and create more of a statutory footing for regulators and the industry.”
“Minister, under your watch, many miles of posts and wire fencing were put up along the A5 western transport corridor. However, in the past few weeks, a good bit of that has been removed by a mechanical digger and pushed into a pile for dumping. Do you accept that that is an outrageous waste of public money — it happened under your watch — especially when you consider that we have some of the worst roads in western Europe?”
“Minister, do you agree that those costs are having a huge impact on major capital projects in, for example, Health and Education, which are being starved of capital funding? Is it down to the amount that they have to spend on climate change?”
“However, I have some concerns about its delivery, and I ask the Minister to continue to work and liaise with councils on the Bill to ensure that, when it is passed by the House and the responsibilities for delivery are passed to the councils, they are in a position to deliver on it and the people in the towns and villages and we, as elected representatives, will be able to see the benefit of delivery from the legislation.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 28 clarifies that paying a fixed penalty will discharge liability only up to the date of payment. If the person continues to ignore the maintenance notice, they will remain liable. While no one will argue against that, it nevertheless increases the enforcement work for councils in monitoring and revisiting a notice and, potentially, prosecuting. Again, that creates another issue that councils have concerns about. <BR /> <BR />One of my colleagues will deal with the SDLP amendments, so I will leave that to the side. <BR /> <BR />The Bill has good intentions, and I hope that it works and delivers for our rural areas, towns and villages.”
“In reality, however, every notice, every new form and every new administrative step will be another cost to councils. We simply cannot keep relying on councils to pick up the cost. We cannot pretend that council budgets are elastic, with plenty of stretch left in them. As is the case in many other sectors, councils are under pressure. There is concern from councils across Northern Ireland about those issues. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 26 will tighten the conditions under which a lay inspector may obtain a warrant to enter premises. While that is a safeguard for property rights, it will increase the administrative load on councils. Inspectors will now need to demonstrate refusal or anticipated refusal and demonstrate that no alternative route exists. While that is legally sound, it will be operationally heavy for councils to enforce.”
“The fact is that councils can recover the cost only if the owner is willing to pay. Councils will likely find that, in a number of cases, the owner is absent, insolvent or simply unwilling to pay. While the amendment improves the wording of clause 12, it does not really address the underlying problem of new duties being created by the Bill without the resources to deliver them, which will again place the onus on councils to recoup the costs or, ultimately, to allow the ratepayer to carry the financial burden. Considering that, surely the Minister should look again at finding some way to assist councils in that regard. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 22 will expand the ability of councils to require information from individuals while giving the Department power to restrict what information can be asked for.”
“The amendments were fully scrutinised, and there were no dissenting voices to any of them when it came to agreeing to them at Committee. <BR /> <BR />Some amendments, however, go beyond tidying up the wording of the Bill and instead go to the very heart of how the legislation will operate on the ground, including the extra burdens that it will place on already overstretched councils. I will speak to some of those amendments briefly. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 19 focuses on cost recovery for fencing off and watching dangerous buildings, but it fails to provide a financial framework for councils for that. It clarifies that councils may recover the cost of fencing off or watching buildings that pose a danger to the public, but clarity is not the same as practicality.”
“At the outset, I welcome the importance of the legislation before the House today. While it is a step in the right direction for our towns and villages, it is perhaps not the silver bullet that covers all the areas that will be brought into focus. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge the scrutiny that the Bill was subject to in Committee. We heard from quite a few witnesses. The Bill went back and forth between departmental officials and the Committee on numerous occasions, as we sought to iron out concerns that had been raised. There is no doubt that there are still some concerns, as we have heard in the House today already. While 36 amendments were tabled, 32 are from the Minister, most of which are technical in nature in order to tidy up the drafting, improve clarity and help correct the terminology in the Bill.”
“The gruesome reality is that, were she alive today and were she to meet the so-called First Minister for all and ask her why her son was murdered, we know what the answer would be: "Mrs Darcy, there was no alternative". Of course, there is always an alternative to murder. There always was and always is an alternative to murder. <BR /> <BR />Today, we honour the memory of Michael Darcy, one of Ulster's sons. We remember the entire community of Castlederg, who suffered the loss not only of Michael but of 28 other gallant men and women who stood to uphold law and order throughout our communities and lost their life as a result.”
“His murder was an attack not only on him but on the rule of law, on the right to life and on every citizen in the unionist community in Castlederg. <BR /> <BR />Earlier on the evening of 4 June 1988, Michael, a founding member of Castlederg Young Loyalists Flute Band, had attended a band parade in my village of Drumquin and then went on to Beragh. On his return home that night, as he drove his car into his backyard, a gunman stepped out from behind the trees and pumped six bullets into his back. Michael died instantly. Michael's mother — an elderly woman who depended on her only son as her main carer — was waiting for him to come home. When she heard the gunfire, she knew that something was seriously wrong. She was an elderly woman left without her only son and left without her main carer.”
“Two weeks ago, I attended a special memorial service in Castlederg to mark the 38th anniversary of the brutal murder of Lance Corporal Michael Darcy on 4 June 1988 by the IRA, the bedfellows of Sinn Féin. While the IRA, which was responsible for decades of murder, violence, intimidation and human rights violations, claimed responsibility for the murder, there is one thing that it could never claim: justification. There was no justification for the murder of Michael Darcy. Michael Darcy, who was only 28 years old, lived with and cared for his elderly mother. He was her main carer. The only reason that he, like so many others in Castlederg, was murdered was that he was a Protestant and a unionist and upheld law and order.”
“Minister, given the absence of clarity on funding for councils, do you not accept that the Bill risks being legislatively sound but financially undeliverable by councils?”
“Thank you for that, Minister. That is welcome. Do you accept that the women in the Western Trust were denied the same level of scrutiny and potential redress as those in the Southern Trust? On the back of that question, is the real reason that the Western Trust was excluded because, if it had been included, it would have revealed a much larger systemic failure that would have made the case for a statutory public inquiry unavoidable?”
“Throughout my years as a Member, I have witnessed, day by day, the huge impact that the work of volunteers has made on our communities. I have seen the difference that they make in homes, in neighbourhoods and in the lives of people who may never know their name but will always feel the benefit of their generosity. Standing shoulder to shoulder with our volunteers, and on behalf of those who can testify to their lives having been touched by their sterling, dedicated work, I express my sincere gratitude. It is a service that strengthens the community spirit in the little place that we call home.”
“<BR /> <BR />Volunteering is one of the greatest expressions of citizenship. It is the work that never makes the headlines but holds our communities together. Whether it is supporting the vulnerable, organising local events, coaching young people or simply being there when someone needs a helping hand, the contribution of volunteers matters so much to people and makes a real difference to their lives. <BR /> <BR />Today, I acknowledge the service that they deliver. It is about saying to volunteers simply but with all sincerity, "Thank you for the hours that you give, the skills that you share and the example that you set, reminding us that community spirit is something that we build day by day through acts of kindness and commitment".”
“Yesterday marked the commencement of Volunteers' Week, when organisations and all those throughout Northern Ireland who give of their time in a voluntary manner are recognised for their sterling work. It was a privilege to meet a number of groups in Omagh yesterday and present them with certificates to acknowledge the work that they had done not only over the past year but throughout many previous years. They are the people who, through their dedication and undivided commitment, quietly breathe life into the heart of our communities, keeping them strong and people-focused. In many towns and villages throughout Northern Ireland, they are the individuals who willingly give their time, energy and compassion not for praise or reward but because they care about the people around them.”
“Thank you for that. <BR /> <BR />Due to the lack of clarity in the Bill, there is also an issue for PSNI officers. How can they be expected to determine in real time whether a dog's behaviour constitutes "hunting" under the Bill's ill-defined terms? I wonder what consultation there has been with the PSNI on the resource implications of enforcing the legislation. <BR /> <BR />We have before us a Bill that is not only not balanced but that, I would go so far as to say, discriminates against the rural community and those who love their dogs.”
“Many more than one. When they go out with them for a walk or whatever, they would therefore be open to criminal conviction under the provisions of the Bill.”
“Maybe the Member would accept that many people in rural areas have two, three or four springer spaniel dogs that they take out?”
“Many people in the rural community have more than two dogs and go out walking with them; they are therefore —”
“A farmer who has a problem with vermin in barns or outhouses would be "seriously impeded" in protecting his or her property. Again, there we have an attack on the farming community who seek to protect their livestock, their grain and all that goes with being in that community. <BR /> <BR />There are also detrimental consequences for those who are involved in country sport. Mr Blair has said that someone who is out shooting and has their dogs with them would be exempt from that provision, but that is not in the Bill. They are not protected because it is not in the Bill; if it is not in the Bill, those people are not protected. In the Committee, when I questioned Mr Blair about what constituted a "group" or a "pack" of dogs, he said that that meant anything over two dogs.”
“What does the former Attorney General say about that? He says:”
“The Bill is in breach of the Rural Needs Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, which requires public authorities, including the Assembly, to consider the impact of legislation on rural communities. There is no rural impact assessment, no economic modelling and no recognition of the consequences of the Bill for farmers, land managers, rural businesses, conservation groups or working dog handlers. That is why the Bill is fundamentally flawed: its removal of effective control methods of fox management would have greater consequences for animal welfare. <BR /> <BR />The Bill seeks to ban trail hunting, but it is drafted in such a way as to mean that the proposed ban on trail hunting would also render unlawful the use of dogs to find and flush out rats or mice. The definition of "trail hunt" is:”
“For example, a farmer whose dog flushes a fox while protecting livestock would fall foul of the law and receive a criminal conviction. As was mentioned, if someone is walking their pet dog and the dog follows the scent of a rabbit or another animal, that person could receive a criminal conviction. That is clear in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is not supported by scientific evidence, welfare data, economic analysis or a credible assessment of its rural impact. In fact, support for the Bill in the consultation survey amounted to only 0·44% of the Northern Ireland population, yet the Bill ignores the Burns inquiry, DEFRA research, and multiple independent studies of effective and humane wildlife management.”
“When a Bill is so unclear that senior legal figures warn that it will collapse under scrutiny, the Assembly should sit up and take notice. The Bill would place law-abiding farmers, dog handlers, pest controllers and rural workers at risk of prosecution for carrying out essential everyday tasks. It would criminalise legitimate fox control and expose our farming community to prosecution. It would make routine pest management legally hazardous and create offences that depend on hindsight rather than on intent. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is not about tackling cruelty. Rather, it is about criminalising rural life. The people who would be targeted are the very people who maintain the countryside, protect livestock and uphold high standards of animal welfare. Clause 1 presents a real risk to farmers.”
“I rise to oppose the Bill. The reasons for opposing it are threefold: it is legislatively weak, practically unworkable and fundamentally damaging to the rural people of Northern Ireland. The House has a duty to pass laws that are clear, proportionate, enforceable and grounded in evidence. This Bill fails to meet each of those tests. <BR /> <BR />The former Attorney General, John Larkin KC, has highlighted what many of us have long suspected, namely that the Bill is poorly drafted, legally ambitious and constitutionally problematic. It creates offences that are vague, ill-defined and open to arbitrary interpretation. It risks criminalising people, not for intent but for circumstances that are entirely outside their control.”
“Thank you. Minister, some years ago, when firearms licensing went online, we were told that it would resolve the problems and make the service more effective, efficient and streamlined, free up personnel and resolve the backlog issues. What has gone wrong?”
“I thank the Minister for his response. The report conservatively estimates that 1,032 excess deaths were associated with waits of 12 hours or more in Northern Ireland's emergency departments. Minister, that is the equivalent of 20 lives every week, which is catastrophic. Will you outline to the House what you are doing about that? You have mentioned a number of things, but what are you doing to address the issue in order to help to reduce the number of deaths in 2026?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Has any risk to public health, animal health or trade been identified as a result of the weaknesses that were found?”
“<BR /> <BR />I urge the Minister to consider the road that we are on, to change course and to deliver climate change policy that can be worked on and delivered, rather than something that cannot be delivered at all.”
“<BR /> <BR />If a policy delivers environmental benefit at a reasonable cost, it will stand up to scrutiny, but when a policy imposes disproportionate burdens on rural communities, working families or essential infrastructure, the House has a duty and responsibility to acknowledge that and to act accordingly. We cannot continue with a situation where climate policies are developed in isolation from economic reality, have unrealistic targets and are aspirational on paper but obstructive in practice at huge cost to the public purse, with little evidence of benefits flowing from them. Such policies are causing devastation to our industries, our agricultural communities and other sectors across Northern Ireland.”
“Farmers already under pressure from volatile markets and rising input costs are being asked to absorb additional regulatory burdens without any transparent assessment of the economic consequences. Householders, who are facing a cost-of-living crisis, are being asked to shoulder higher bills without any clear evidence that those measures deliver value for money. <BR /> <BR />The motion neither denies climate change nor rejects environmental action, but it requests competence and evidence-based analysis and that every Department and arm's-length body conducts a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of all net zero-related policies and funding streams. That is not radical; rather, it represents responsible government and leadership from the Minister who is bringing forward those policies.”
“Yes, I agree fully. We need to look at the facts and the reality rather than burying our heads in the sand and pursuing targets that are not feasible. <BR /> <BR />We also face the perverse situation where a statutory minimum spend on active travel, no matter how well intentioned, is actively preventing investment in basic road maintenance. Our ratepayers expect potholes to be repaired, safe roads to travel on and an infrastructure that delivers, yet DFI is prioritising spending to satisfy a legal formula, rather than a public need. <BR /> <BR />The draft climate action plan compounds those issues, containing proposals that are uncosted, unquantified and unclear in their impact.”
“<BR /> <BR />We are all well aware of the situation around the A5 road upgrade. It is a project that has been in the mix for more than a decade at a cost of millions of pounds, yet it is still sitting in limbo due to unrealistic climate change targets that simply cannot be met. The implications extend much further than that because the A4 Enniskillen southern bypass and other major infrastructure schemes now face similar uncertainties. When legal obligations designed for one purpose end up blocking essential public works, something is wrong.”
“<BR /> <BR />No one in the Chamber will dispute the importance of environmental responsibility, but when climate change targets become detached from economic reality, from engineering feasibility and from the lived experience of households and our farming community, surely it is the duty of the Assembly to pause, scrutinise and change our course of action. <BR /> <BR />While other parties pursued the net zero by 2050 policy and other unrealistic targets, resulting in the estimated cost of DAERA's draft climate action plan exceeding £1 billion between now and 2027, we continually opposed them and warned of the consequences. Minister, having ambitious targets without proper analysis is not leadership. It poses a risk, and we are now reaping the consequences of that.”
“There is nothing in the motion that should not command the support of all around the Chamber, yet all I have heard from the other Benches is hot air, pardon the pun, and an unwillingness to face up to reality. <BR /> <BR />The motion speaks to a fundamental responsibility that we all share, and that is to ensure that the policies that we pass in the Chamber deliver real, tangible benefits for the people whom we represent, not policies that are unbalanced, that cripple industry and that destroy our agricultural community.”
“<BR /> <BR />I further note from the motion the phrase "enhance environmental accountability and safeguards". Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether that is not what the NIEA and the OEP are already supposed to be doing, albeit at a snail's pace. Minister, how can you be trusted with another environmental agency quango when you cannot even fix what is currently under your control? We do not support the motion.”
“Thank you. That is a very fair assessment of what we believe the Minister is doing. If the Minister is serious about the environment — if he wants to be known as the Minister who led on environmental issues, rather than as the pass-the-buck Minister — he needs to man up to his responsibilities and begin with fixing the system already under his control by properly resourcing the NIEA and empowering it to act in a much more effective and efficient manner. Minister, you can no longer hide behind the environmental structures that you have responsibility for but that are failing to deliver. You have been long enough in post now to have had the outstanding issues in the NIEA resolved. How are you going to find the resources for a new independent environmental protection agency when you cannot find them for the NIEA?”
“When challenged about the poor delivery from the NIEA, which is causing huge problems for farmers who are endeavouring to upgrade their farm buildings to comply with environmental regulations but are being hampered from doing so, what response do we get from the Minister? He says, "It is someone else's problem." A planning problem, perhaps. Blame the planners. Or he says, "We are putting mechanisms in place to address the issue." It is a bureaucratic problem. He continually passes the buck, and little is being delivered.”
“Yet it appears that the Minister is not satisfied with those bodies and wants to add to the environmental bureaucracy, but he has provided no costing as to how much the independent environmental protection agency would cost or where the money would come from to fund it. <BR /> <BR />Further to that, no clarity has been provided as to what the agency would do that the other bodies are not already doing. The reality is that, while we are not short on oversight, results are abysmal, and it is not another quango or more committees that we need, but tangible results. Yet that is what the Minister has failed to deliver on.”
“Who does the Alliance Party think that it is to propose that my party's views are to be ignored and trampled underfoot to allow it to pursue its pet projects and advance Minister Muir's single-track green agenda irrespective of the cost? It is time that the Minister took off the blinkers, took a good look at the environmental protection measures that we already have in place and provided them with the support and teeth that they need to deliver results in an effective and efficient manner. We already have the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Office for Environmental Protection and other bodies, such as Shared Environmental Services (SES), which were set up to protect and safeguard our natural environment and enforce regulations, as and when required, while holding the Department to account.”
“I note from the wording of the motion that the DUP remains a thorn in the Alliance Party's side as we continue to hold its Agriculture Minister to account by not allowing him to pursue his ideology, run rampant with the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency and add a further bureaucratic burden to an already overloaded, bureaucratic Department. Where have the days gone of cutting bureaucracy and red tape rather than adding to it? Unfortunately, those days seem to be long gone. <BR /> <BR />Amidst the Alliance Party's hypocrisy, I note from its motion that it decries the voice of what it describes as:”
“<BR /> <BR />Until all those issues are resolved, I see no merit in adding a greater burden to a system that is already under pressure. Any decisions must be taken incrementally with full Assembly scrutiny and transparency.”
“<BR /> <BR />We are all too well aware of the downgrading of services at the South West Acute Hospital in recent times, such as the changes to emergency general surgery. We are all passionate about that and want to see it restored. Before any consideration is given to exploring cross-border access, we must focus our energy on stabilising and restoring full services in the South West Acute Hospital and across the Western Health and Social Care Trust area for the local population. Take the Hospital at Home concept: the Western Health and Social Care Trust has made provision for that service at Altnagelvin and in Enniskillen, but there is no provision whatsoever for it in Omagh. That points to a real disparity in service delivery, with services not being delivered evenly and equally across the trust area.”
“<BR /> <BR />What about staffing? We all know that we face severe staffing issues across our health and social care system. If the South West Acute Hospital were to become a cross-border hospital, would that result in staff being shared across the border? From conversations that some of my colleagues have had, I know that there would be a logistical and HR problem in developing and delivering this. <BR /> <BR />What about the extra demand? Our doctors and nurses are already overstretched. Adding demand risks burnout and retention issues. In rural trusts such as the Western Health and Social Care Trust, staff recruitment is difficult at the best of times, so extra demand in the absence of extra staff would render it unsustainable.”
“I am sure that, like me, Members around the Chamber deal weekly in their constituency office with constituents' health issues, including lengthy waiting times. Frankly, until that issue is resolved, we do not need to put further pressure on the South West Acute Hospital, which would add to the problem. <BR /> <BR />Let us look at the funding issue. The South West Acute Hospital is funded through the Northern Ireland Health budget, so Northern Ireland taxpayers should not be subject to reduced access as a result of capacity being allocated elsewhere. That would not happen in any other jurisdiction. If cross-border usage were to be expanded to the South West Acute Hospital, full and consistent funding would need to follow the patient, or would the Health Minister be expected to find that funding from an already stretched Health budget?”