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 8 of 21.
“Let us hope that the restoration of the Executive is not another false dawn for an industry that depends so much on investment as it seeks to move forward. The representatives of the fishing industry must get a clear understanding from the Minister on the current state of those plans, and they need to know whether integrated consultant teams have been or will now be able to complete the relevant technical studies and whether proper investment will be in place to allow the development work to commence.”
“<BR /> <BR />While my colleague the previous AERA Minister successfully sought permission for an outline business case to move forward the important work of carrying out the technical and environmental studies to unlock that investment and get construction under way, it is regrettable that, due to budgetary and other pressures, that preparatory work was delayed and could not be taken forward.”
“Those objectives are in the document, but they have not been delivered. <BR /> <BR />The recommendations were to enhance the capacity of Ardglass to provide security for fishing and processing businesses; develop Kilkeel as a potential Irish Sea hub for the fishing and maritime economy by increasing port capacity and shoreside facilities; and invest in Portavogie harbour estate to allow it to take advantage of future blue economy opportunities. The proposed investment was £73 million for Kilkeel, £20 million for Ardglass and £5 million for Portavogie. However, to date, the vision, the objectives, the recommendations and the proposed financial spend still form part of a paper exercise that not been delivered for the hard-pressed fishing industry in Northern Ireland today.”
“That vision is still in the document, but it has not yet been realised. <BR /> <BR />There are three objectives. The fishing objective is:”
“Page 30 of that report sets out very clearly the vision of the programme and its objectives and recommendations. I will remind the House of some of issues in that report. The vision is:”
“I thank all Members who took part in today's debate on much-needed capital investment in the fishing industry in Northern Ireland. The motion sets out the important part that the fishing industry plays in the economy and highlights the impact that rising costs are having on the industry and the fishermen and their respective families. It also outlines the practical and financial support that is required to enable the industry to continue to develop by being in a position where it can take advantage of new fishing opportunities, including through investment in the modernisation of its vessels. <BR /> <BR />A vision was set out in the fishing and seafood development programme report of May 2021, which was first commissioned in 2019.”
“<BR /> <BR />Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the motion.”
“<BR /> <BR />As we stand in the House today, we are faced with a huge problem that will require collective responsibility from all involved and will include a multi-agency approach and a long-term strategy to resolve the problem and secure solid foundations and the right resources to ensure that the situation in the lough and other threats to wildlife and habitats are addressed sustainably. We, as a party, are committed to protecting our environmental heritage, which will be key to Northern Ireland's success for generations. We must work together if we want to see the issue addressed and restore the lough not only to its former glory but to a glory greater than it had originally for local communities, for increased tourism in the area and, indeed, for local people and recreation.”
“<BR /> <BR />Recent research that I read indicated that the biggest factor impacting on how algae grows in Lough Neagh is increased water temperatures. The research stated that nitrate levels in the lough are now half or less than half what they were some years ago and that there is no correlation between phosphorus levels on the farmland surrounding the lough and phosphorus levels in the lough. The conclusion was that the increased algae growth in the lough is not attributable to the agriculture industry or community.”
“It is ironic, though, that in such situations, a lot of the time, the finger of blame is pointed at the farming community, the very custodians of the countryside, when there is no real factual evidence for those assertions. We are not saying that the agriculture industry is squeaky clean, but, when a problem is identified in the industry, measures are always taken to resolve it. It is fair to say that the agriculture industry has made significant strides in developing best practice and taking responsible action to reduce any risk of run-off from farmers' land. I have no doubt that, as an industry, it can and will do more to resolve the issue and stop any run-off from farmland, but there are other factors contributing to the problem concerning Lough Neagh.”
“The problem did not arise just overnight; it has been ongoing for some time.”
“It is of grave concern that this natural asset, which has much more future potential, has been allowed to fall into such decline over the past years. With some 20 public bodies, including government agencies and Departments, involved in Lough Neagh, it is concerning that the problem was not nipped in the bud some time ago rather than allowing it to fester into the situation that we are faced with today.”
“Lough Neagh, which is the largest freshwater lake in the United Kingdom and measures over 300 square kilometres, is no doubt one of Northern Ireland's crown jewels, with its shores touching five of our six counties. It is one of the most beautiful natural assets and is an important resource for our drinking water, with more than 40% of the drinking water in our homes coming from that resource. It is, therefore, important that NI Water provides continued assurances around the safety of the water that is being extracted for drinking purposes. <BR /> <BR />As we have heard, Lough Neagh is also an important resource for traditional fishing, our farming industries and commercial and tourism facilities, and it needs to be protected against any future damage.”
“I welcome the Minister's statement and wish him well in his new post. He mentioned the Strule shared education campus. Over the past number of years, that project has been fraught with numerous difficulties, not least those of a financial nature due to the funding uncertainty. In light of that, and of the business case being finalised, can he give any guidance to the House that the project is good value for money?”
“Further improvements in making information available and trackable on the Assembly's website would improve transparency and understanding of the processes around LCMs for Members and the public. As the Chair set out, the Committee also sought improvements in information flow and better direct communication with Parliament. <BR /> <BR />As the mandate will end next week, we will, of course, be unable to make the changes before the end of the mandate. However, that work will be highlighted to the new Committee on Procedures in the Committee's legacy report, and I hope that it will be able to table the proposed amendments as soon as is practicably possible in the new mandate. <BR /> <BR />I am pleased to support the report and its recommendations. I commend them to the House.”
“The Committee hoped to hear from the Executive why that occasionally occurred, but we received no explanation. The Committee acknowledges that one reason may be the difficulty of obtaining the required level of Executive approval within the relevant time frame. The Statutory Committees made it clear that they were frequently not given adequate time to undertake the required scrutiny of a devolved matter, particularly due to a lack of advance information and partly due to the tight deadline set out by Standing Orders. <BR /> <BR />As a result of its inquiry, the Committee made seven recommendations. The small number of changes to existing Standing Order 42A could yield improvements in the Assembly's experience of the reporting of LCMs.”
“Kellie Armstrong spoke about the importance of the democratic voice of the Assembly being heard and of the importance of scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />As the Chair said, the last time LCM procedures were reviewed was over 10 years ago, when the then Committee on Procedures introduced the current Standing Order 42A. Unfortunately, and although it is more than a decade later, it is clear from the Committee's inquiry that some of the same issues remain in terms of openness, transparency and engagement between Ministers and the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was particularly concerned to note examples of when the Assembly was not made aware of Bills that required legislative consent. The question has to be asked: how can we, as a legislative Assembly, find that acceptable?”
“<BR /> <BR />Sinéad Bradley said that LCMs were not a desirable way to do business but there were times when they had to be used. She spoke about the importance of getting it right and said that timeliness was one of the biggest problems. From the Committee and from listening to other views, one of the issues that came through was that there was not enough time for scrutiny by Committees. <BR /> <BR />Rosemary Barton made mention of the general principle of LCMs and of times when LCMs have come forward without proper notification. She spoke of the need for additional time to be built in to enable Committees to carry out proper scrutiny. So it is back to the same thing again, where Committees do not have the time for the proper scrutiny of LCMs.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I acknowledge that there has already been a lot of business from the Committee on Procedures today, and I appreciate Members' engagement and the points made during all the debates on the Committee's business. <BR /> <BR />This is yet another report that the Committee has completed, this time on its inquiry into legislative consent motions. The scrutiny of LCMs is sometimes an area of work that does not get the attention it deserves. Therefore, it has been interesting to hear Members' views on the topics that the Committee took a great deal of time to consider, seeking additional research in order to get a real understanding of what exactly the problems and issues were and where they were coming from.”
“Like I said, the Committee's goal in making those recommendations was to make the process fair, cost-effective and not overly arduous. <BR /> <BR />Three of the recommendations involve changes to Standing Orders, should the Assembly agree to the report today, and, given the time that remains in the mandate, the Committee hopes that those recommendations can be implemented as soon as possible in the next mandate in order to assist Members through the private Member's Bill process. I look forward to seeing how those changes will make a difference to such an important process. Therefore, I am pleased to support the report and recommendations that are before the House.”
“Although it was acknowledged by the Committee that bringing a privately drafted Bill could be quicker, it was not considered fair or appropriate that privately drafted Bills do not have to meet the same requirements. The need to balance the right to legislate with fairness and value for money was at the forefront of our minds when we concluded that privately drafted Bills should, as a minimum, be accompanied by a robust consultation exercise and consultation with the relevant Department or Departments. Those new procedural requirements are not overly burdensome and still preserve a Member's right to use the option to have a Bill privately drafted. <BR /> <BR />Those are just some of the main recommendations from the Committee's inquiry, and the Chair has already set out some of the procedural changes that are involved.”
“The point is that private Members' Bills should be viewed as one option to bring about a desired change, not the only solution. Rather than simply introducing a private Member's Bill, there are other ways of bringing about change. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was very clear that all private Members' Bills should aim to be narrow, specific and focused to effect the change that a Bill sponsor seeks to achieve. A private Member's Bill is not the best route for a large, complex Bill, a view shared by the Speaker when he presented to the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Another area on which the Committee agreed was the requirement for all private Members' Bills, whether developed through the private Members' Bills unit or privately drafted, to meet a number of minimum requirements.”
“The Committee agreed that the process of bringing forward or developing a private Member's Bill should not be overly burdensome; rather, it should be transparent, efficient and, very importantly, represent value for money. It also agreed that this mandate has been extraordinary, and, although it should not be used as a model of demand for PMBs in future mandates, it was clear from the figures and statistics that the demand for PMBs has been steadily increasing over recent mandates. As the Chairperson rightly highlighted in her introduction to the debate, Members who bring forward PMBs should be mindful of the policy objectives that they wish to achieve, and they should determine whether they are policy objectives that may be able to be addressed via other means.”
“<BR /> <BR />Having heard those perspectives, I found it particularly interesting to observe and participate in the debates as a number of private Members' Bills progressed through the House in recent weeks. A private Member's Bill is a valued and powerful means of effecting considerable change, and, because of that, it was important for the Committee to tread a fine line: setting standards and procedural requirements to make the development of legislation rigorous and thorough without restricting Members' rights to develop a Bill's purpose. <BR /> <BR />All the report's recommendations reflect the Committee's view. All Committee members agreed that the right of a Member to sponsor private legislation is highly valued and should be retained.”
“She stated that the primary objective of the Assembly is to "consider, scrutinise and pass legislation" for the people of Northern Ireland. Private Members' Bills are a valued and useful means of bringing about significant legislative change for the people whom we represent. <BR /> <BR />There was much to be learned from the evidence-gathering stage of the inquiry. It was especially useful to hear directly from the MLAs who had sponsored a private Member's Bill in recent times and to hear their accounts of the process. It was also useful to hear from the Speaker, who articulated his views on the process. I thank the Speaker and all Members who came to speak to the Committee.”
“<BR /> <BR />Rosemary Bradley, sorry Braton, Barton — I will get it right yet — appreciated the resources required for PMBs and said that their further development would require much more resource than they currently get. She spoke about the final deadline for PMBs to be submitted to the Assembly, which was agreed by the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Kellie Armstrong talked about the PMBs coming through and said that they all need to be supported by the Assembly's PMB services. She spoke about her experience of bringing a private Member's Bill through the House and the checks and balances that are needed for such Bills. That gave us something of a flavour of what other Members said. <BR /> <BR />I echo what the Chairperson said when she opened the debate.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members who contributed to the debate on the Committee's report on its 'Inquiry into Private Members' Bills' and its recommendations. I appreciated hearing all the comments made by Members from around the Floor as they expressed their views on the review of the process of private Members' Bills. I will focus on some of those comments. <BR /> <BR />Sinéad Bradley supported the report. She spoke about the large number of private Members' Bills in recent times and the difficulties that there had been with some of them. She also said that this piece of work would need some refinement in the future to support Members.”
“On behalf of the Committee on Procedures, I commend the motion to the House.”
“That is entirely reasonable, and the Committee strongly urges the next Committee on Procedures to undertake an immediate review of the temporary provisions as soon as possible in the next mandate.”
“Kellie Armstrong said that no Member treated the issue of proxy voting lightly and that Members are aware of what is going on, what they are voting on and what their parties were voting for. Jim Allister felt that it was unnecessary to extend the provisions as we are going into the next mandate. <BR /> <BR />As the Chairperson said, I can attest that the Committee has regularly reviewed the time frames of the provisions and sought views from other stakeholders when considering proposals to extend the provisions. This time, the Business Committee shared the view of the Committee on Procedures that, due to the rapidly changing circumstances with the pandemic, the temporary provisions should be allowed to roll to the end of the mandate and potentially beyond.”
“<BR /> <BR />The temporary provisions have been essential in allowing the Assembly and Committees to continue to undertake their work during what were and continue to be difficult and extraordinary times. They have allowed for remote and hybrid proceedings in the Chamber and have allowed members to attend Committee meetings remotely, vote by proxy and, most importantly, to continue to undertake an important scrutiny role. It is difficult to see how the work could have been undertaken had we been unable to use those arrangements and have them in place. We are fortunate that we have the technology and infrastructure that have allowed work to continue in this way. <BR /> <BR />I note the remarks of Members. Sinéad Bradley welcomed the extension but said that, in any review, the matter needed to be looked at in a wider context.”
“I thank Members who have contributed to the debate on the motion to amend Standing Order 110 to extend the temporary provisions in Standing Orders 110A to 116 until the end of July 2022. The last time the House agreed an extension was in June last year, when the provisions were extended until the end of the mandate. <BR /> <BR />While we are all pleased, I am sure, to see that circumstances relating to the pandemic have significantly improved, I do not think that we should completely let our guard down or allow the temporary provisions to dissolve entirely at the end of the mandate. That could put us in a precarious situation, if we were to return after an election and, due to the pandemic, Members still found themselves having to self-isolate.”
“However, after reflection and deliberation, it was agreed that a more permanent provision should be made in Standing Orders, owing to the fact that other exceptional and genuine reasons may arise that prevent a Member from attending that first meeting. Therefore, I support today's motions and urge the House to support them.”
“Rosemary Barton made reference to it being it being "reasonable and proportionate". Although Kellie Armstrong said that the Alliance Party supported the motion, she raised concerns that it did not address the issue of designation. I think that everyone in the House, regardless of their political opinion, can agree that the first day that a Member reports to the Assembly is important and significant. Therefore, only in exceptional circumstances would someone stop any of us from being here. <BR /> <BR />During the Committee's consideration of the proposed amendments, it originally discussed temporary measures only in the context of COVID-19 self-isolation requirements and the impact that they might place on Members when the new Assembly sits.”
“I listened to the Members in the Chamber today. Sinéad Bradley made reference to the proposed change being a "reasonable adjustment" that:”
“I agree that the changes that the Committee is proposing to the Standing Orders are reasonable and proportionate and will achieve the intended objective, which is to address the risk of a new Member being unable to give their designation in person at the first meeting of a new Assembly and the further unintended consequences of that.”
“I support the motion to change Standing Order 3 and introduce a new Standing Order 3A with a consequential amendment to Standing Order 4. That is simply a practical solution for an emergency or exceptional situation that could have significant consequences if it is not addressed. <BR /> <BR />It is fair to say with confidence that not many of us expected to see what we have seen or the changes that have taken place since Standing Order 3 was originally drafted and agreed. Therefore, it is right that we change Standing Orders to respond to changing circumstances. We live in uncertain times, and the lives of elected representatives are no less subject to the unexpected circumstances that arise in the lives of those who elect us.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is expected that more women will enter the agriculture industry throughout the United Kingdom as the uptake of women in educational courses in agriculture has increased. I welcome the courses that are already offered at CAFRE to encourage young women into the sector; I appreciate that maybe more can be done, but those are ongoing. As a Committee, we have the opportunity to ensure that the agriculture industry is a fairer and more inclusive industry. It should be a priority to promote women who wish to advance their career in the agriculture sector.”
“Similar initiatives need to be rolled out in Northern Ireland to give women time to take part in courses to enhance their leadership skills and to boost their overall morale while working in a male-dominated environment. From the Committee's findings, it is clear that women in this sector believe that their opinion is not as readily accepted as a male's opinion. A woman's perspective can differ from a man's, and new approaches and ideas will help the industry to modernise to meet the challenges that agriculture will face in the near future, such as the new climate change legislation, which will mean that farms will have to take active steps to reduce their emissions.”
“Already, 200 women have enrolled in Scotland's "Be Your Best Self" programme, which supports women in developing their leadership abilities to ensure that agriculture is a more resilient and economically sustainable industry. The Scottish task force also plans to scope out the provision of childcare services in rural areas, looking at how to improve its availability to women who want to work in the agriculture sector. <BR /> <BR />The online survey carried out by the AERA Committee showed that some of the biggest deterrents to women entering the agriculture industry in a full-time capacity are the unreasonable hours required for farm work and the lack of support such as maternity leave and help towards childcare costs.”
“They often also hold other employment, using their salary to ensure the continued day-to-day running of the farm; yet their contribution often goes unnoticed, and women feel that they will never be recognised as farmers on their own merit. <BR /> <BR />Agriculture is an accessible career with plenty of opportunities, but it relies on the new ideas, skills and talents of young men and women to provide a sustainable future. Measures have been implemented in other parts of the United Kingdom, such as in Scotland, which has funded three pilot training programmes to encourage women's participation in the agriculture sector.”
“There is a clear stigma of farming being a male-dominated industry. That stereotype has proven to be a barrier for women in the sector who feel that attitudes towards them will never change. Despite the vital role that they play, many women feel that they are not seen as being as competent as their male colleagues. In the past, the operation of large and heavy machinery and all the manual labour involved in running a farm were seen as being men's jobs. The whole nature of farming is changing, however, with a shift away from masculine labour towards new technology and operating systems. <BR /> <BR />We cannot undermine the vital work that is undertaken by women in the farming community. Many of them carry out hands-on tasks whilst completing paperwork and looking after the household needs.”
“I welcome the opportunity, on International Women's Day, to speak in this important debate highlighting the difficulties faced by women in the agriculture sector. As a representative of West Tyrone — a vast rural constituency, populated with many farms and large businesses that are reliant on the agriculture industry — I say that it is vital that more proactive steps are taken to recognise the support that women give and the role that they play on farms. <BR /> <BR />Women represent over half of Northern Ireland's population, yet so few of them take up roles in farm management. At just 22%, Northern Ireland has the lowest percentage of women in the agriculture workforce compared with the UK. The issues that face women and that hinder their careers in the farming industry are vast.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. <BR /> <BR />That is why we will oppose Standing Order 20 and Standing Order 20A this evening.”
“Precluding some from doing so because a colleague holds office denies those MLAs an opportunity to fully represent their constituents and constituencies and prevents them from being as effective as they could be. As a result of the proposals in the two Standing Orders on Question Time, Back-Benchers from the larger parties will be penalised because their colleagues are Ministers. That cannot be right; it cannot be the way forward. Provision for an Opposition, yes, but not in this fashion, which sidelines Back-Benchers and is therefore discriminatory.”
“When we consider the current situation, which is that some Ministers barely make it past question 3 or 4 at Question Time, we see that the opportunity to be called is further depleted. Furthermore, given that a supplementary question may not be taken from a party colleague of the original questioner, that, combined with the Opposition's automatically being given the second supplementary question, even in circumstances where the original question is from one of their Members, affords extremely limited opportunities for the Back-Bench Members of the larger parties to exercise their rights of scrutiny at Question Time. <BR /> <BR />All MLAs should be afforded reasonable and fair opportunities to ask questions on issues affecting their constituents.”
“Furthermore, the larger the party, the more the problem will manifest itself in the House. Question Time should be open and fair to allow all MLAs to scrutinise Ministers on policy and constituency issues. The fact that an MLA is from a larger party should not diminish their right to raise issues at Question Time with a Minister on behalf of their constituents. That is exactly what these two Standing Orders do. To do so is not making provision for an Opposition; it is a denial of democracy.”
“We support the provision for an Opposition, but that support is in accordance with the overarching principle that such provision must be fair and equitable to all in the House. We consider that the new provisions proposed for Standing Order 20 on questions for oral answer and Standing Order 20A on topical questions swing the pendulum too far and, in doing so, disproportionately discriminate against Back-Benchers from the larger parties. <BR /> <BR />Under these Standing Orders, it will be extremely difficult for a Back-Bencher to be called at Question Time. Only one MLA per party will be selected on any given subject, with the result that MLAs will be competing with their party colleagues and will not be called at all if the Member who asked the original question is from the same party.”
“Of course, Jim Allister mentioned the mandatory coalition and said that it did not lend itself to an official Opposition and that an official Opposition would not sit comfortably with it. <BR /> <BR />Today's motions are sufficient to properly implement the entitlements that were agreed by the Assembly when it debated and agreed the AERC report on the independent review. <BR /> <BR />The DUP has concerns with Standing Orders 20 and 20A, and, of course, Standing Order 20B is tied into Standing Order 20. I will make some comment on that. My colleague Joanne Bunting made reference to those concerns at the Committee on different occasions as we were looking at these particular Standing Orders.”
“These motions fulfil the Committee on Procedures' role in delivering the changes to Standing Orders that are needed to underpin improved arrangements for an Opposition to be in place. <BR /> <BR />I listened to some of the Members around the House today. Sinéad Bradley mentioned the advice, including legal advice, that the Committee took. She felt that we came to a reasonable place with that. Rosemary Barton outlined the various Standing Orders and the benefits that they would be to an official Opposition. Kellie Armstrong talked about the huge step forward for the provision of an official Opposition in the House. I hope that the Alliance Party will be happy to come forward and support us on the issue of voluntary coalition in the House.”