Robbie Butler
Lagan Valley · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Officials highlighted that alignment was provided through existing EU-derived arrangements and that coherence with existing regulatory frameworks was identified as a main consideration.”
“I note that the Member for Strangford agrees: she understands the value of our fisheries in those areas. There are other complexities. The Isle of Man Government have now done a bit of a circle around that island, which makes it difficult for our fishers from Portavogie, Kilkeel and Portaferry to craft and graft a living from some of the…”
“The Committee took the opportunity to question officials on several issues and highlight matters warranting scrutiny at Committee Stage but was not limited to those areas.”
“As the Minister said, they have possibly been viewed as competing demands, but they are not competing demands, because clean water is part of sustainable food production.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am glad to see language in the Bill on the sustainability of the aquaculture sector, and I want to lean in a bit on that. Aquaculture pastimes have, perhaps, been underutilised, whether they relate to the angling fraternity or other river and water users.”
“Today, I want to talk about a very talented young girl from Lisburn called Freya Terris. Freya, who is 17 years old, attends Friends' School and studies the piano under former Lisburn resident Rory Dowse. Freya is an incredibly accomplished young pianist and has performed in the Ulster Hall.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,636 lines we hold for Robbie Butler, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 53.
“<BR /> <BR />You will understand that the Committee was not able to agree that there was the required level of assurance for farmers that the conditionality aspect was clear and did not penalise non-participants unduly. Further concern was raised that some farmers who may not be fully aware of the conditionalities would see a penalty being imposed and that the risk of additional compliance requirements on an already heavily scrutinised sector perhaps adds its own risk, and certainly causes concern, for farming families.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will make some points on the Committee's agreed position, but I am confident that Committee members in the Chamber will add their particular positions articulately and clearly as the debate progresses. Concerns were raised, particularly in placing the phased-in conditionality on payments. That was viewed by some members as a further imposition on farmers without sufficient clear incentives, and some members questioned whether enough work had been done to gain the confidence of farmers. The Department has told us that it does not want farm businesses to receive penalties for non-participation in the bovine genetics project and the soil nutrient health scheme but, instead, wishes farm businesses to participate in the schemes to gain the benefits that they will deliver.”
“It is also about encouraging farm businesses to become more environmentally sustainable, efficient and resilient. The regulations do indeed help to bring those key policy changes to the fore. <BR /> <BR />Regarding the implementation of the historical years exercise, there are new, simplified land eligibility rules, new farm sustainability standards to replace cross-compliance and progressive capping for payments above £60,000. To qualify, applicants will also have to fulfil certain conditionality requirements, such as participating in a particular scheme or project. Non-compliance will lead to penalties that will see a reduction in the FSP until that conditionality has been met or restored. It is apparent from the recap that there was plenty for the Committee to consider.”
“If we track the regulations back to the Department's consultation on sustainable agriculture programme proposals and the ambition for a resilience payment in 2021, it was at least heartening to hear that the Department is now seeking to make regulations that are planned to take effect on 1 January 2026. <BR /> <BR />On 9 October, the Committee received an oral briefing from officials on the SL1 for these draft regulations, and, for the record, the Examiner of Statutory Rules advised that the SR was not drawn to the special attention of the Assembly. The stated ambition of the Department was that the farm sustainability payment should provide a balance between providing a safety net for those financial shocks, to which the Minister referred, that farm businesses cannot be expected to manage.”
“Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not being in my seat at the start of the debate, as proceedings have moved rather quickly today. <BR /> <BR />The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has been scrutinising the draft regulations over a number of meetings. I rise to represent the view of the Committee, and, at the end, if I have a few moments, I will share that of the Ulster Unionist Party. <BR />The Committee is unable to support the motion unanimously, having voted four members for and four against. In its consideration, the Committee engaged substantively with the Department, having received initial oral briefings on the scheme from officials on 26 June.”
“I appreciate that, because you have used up all your time on Newry. I have two questions about what you are hoping to do. Will it be for the forthcoming festive period, and would you be open to looking at the fines? Rather than a £45 fine, would you consider a £5 per hour fine that is added every hour that someone is late but does not discourage people from staying in the space, even for an hour, so that they can continue shopping?”
“A fair parking policy is not a small matter but a signal of how we value our towns, traders and people.”
“We should make it easier, not harder, for people to come to, shop in and belong to Lisburn. Our high street is not just an economic engine; it is part of Lisburn's identity. It is the heartbeat of the community. Every small retailer, every café and, on a Tuesday, every market stall contributes to that heartbeat, and every empty parking bay represents a lost opportunity to keep that heart beating strongly. <BR /> <BR />Let us act. Let us end the outdated, unfair policy that singles out Lisburn and Newry. Let us adopt a fair and consistent approach across Northern Ireland. As a minimum and as a first step, let us introduce a free first hour of on-street parking. It is a simple change that would make a world of difference because, when Lisburn thrives, Lagan Valley thrives and Northern Ireland benefits.”
“It would send a clear signal that Lisburn is open, welcoming and ready to compete. Such a change would be simple to implement and widely supported. Public engagement has shown overwhelming public support for a better solution for parking in Lisburn. People want to shop local and support small businesses. They just need a system that makes that possible. <BR /> <BR />As I said, before Minister Kimmins was a Minister, she stood with the campaign to remove the charges. I hope that, now, as Minister, she can complete that journey. Lisburn is not asking for charity; we are asking for fairness. The city has one of the most vibrant communities in Northern Ireland. It is consistently rated as one of the best places to live in Northern Ireland. That reputation should be reflected in the vitality of our city centre offering.”
“I suppose that I have romantic memories of walking around the town carrying meat parcels into shops and round restaurants when the high street thrived — and it did. Sadly, we have lost that. We are talking about lost trade and a frustrating disconnect with the people who call Lisburn "home". <BR /> <BR />Without meaningful action from DFI, Lisburn, like Newry, risks losing the commercial heart that has sustained it for generations. What do we propose? At the very least, there should be a free first hour of on-street parking. That is a balanced, common-sense reform. It would encourage people to get back into the city, take their time, support local traders and get to know one another once again. It would not remove enforcement altogether, but it would restore fairness and flexibility.”
“Often, one hour's parking is not enough to allow a visitor to do their messages, meet a friend for a coffee or browse our independent shops. People should not have to rush back to their car mid-conversation, mid-meal or mid-purchase. However, we have to be realistic about what we can do here. We have created a system that favours the quick errand, not the lingering visit, and it is the lingering visit that sustains our high street. <BR /> <BR />For around 60 years, since the Lisburn Chamber of Commerce's earliest meetings, parking has been one of the retailers' greatest concerns. Decades later, the same issues persist. We are still talking about lost trade and frustrated shoppers in streets that are empty earlier than they should be. Many years ago, I was a butcher in Lisburn. I worked six days a week.”
“However, in Lisburn, which people come to from surrounding villages and rural communities and, often, have to carry their shopping or their children or accompany elderly relatives, car access is essential. <BR /> <BR />The operators of out-of-town shopping centres know that. They offer free, unlimited parking and easy access. Where do people go? They go where it is convenient. Rather than supporting local businesses, they go where parking does not feel like a penalty. We need to make visiting Lisburn as frictionless as possible. Every barrier, whether it is a meter, a confusing app, an overly strict time limit or the anxiety, which I feel, about whether the app is working and whether I have got a ticket, discourages people from coming into my city centre.”
“We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking for equal treatment: either all towns are charged or none. The rules must apply equally across Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The high street faces its most difficult decade in living memory. Sadly, retail habits have shifted online. Energy and wage costs for businesses are up, and margins are thin. Every decision that makes it harder for people to come into our towns pushes them further into decline. We are told that we must adopt a "Town centre first" approach, yet we see the opposite from DFI, with talk of increasing parking charges and removing spaces to discourage car use as part of an eastern transport plan. That approach might make sense in a city like Belfast, where public transport options are abundant.”
“That inequality has a real cost. It costs local traders footfall; it costs families convenience; and it costs Lisburn a competitive edge. I had better make a declaration, in case the Minister declares it, that I have fallen foul of the redcoats in Lisburn far too many times. However, the purpose of the debate is not for me; it is for the shops and the high street. <BR /> <BR />During the 2020-21 Chamber of Commerce and Industry campaign, Lisburn Chamber of Commerce, alongside its compatriot in Newry, secured support from Liz Kimmins MLA, who now serves as the Infrastructure Minister, for the removal of on-street parking charges. At that time, she recognised the unfairness of the system. Now, perhaps, she has the authority to finally deliver on that pressure.”
“Across Northern Ireland from Bangor to Banbridge and from Carrickfergus to Derry/Londonderry, people can pull up, park and pop into their local town without paying a penny for the privilege — that was a lot Ps — yet in Lisburn we are expected to treat as a luxury something that is free everywhere else. <BR /> <BR />The debate is not about opposing the fair management of our roads; it is about consistency and fairness. If charging for on-street parking truly is best practice, why are Lisburn and Newry the only places where it applies. Within a 20-mile radius of Lisburn, not one of the following towns charge for on-street parking: Antrim, Banbridge, Bangor, Comber, Carrickfergus, Downpatrick, Lurgan, Moira and Portadown. Not even our larger regional cities, such as Derry/Londonderry and Armagh, charge for on-street parking.”
“I beg to move the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not need to move the motion — I have not done one of these in a long time. I will strike that from the video later, Mr Honeyford. I thank the Deputy Speaker for indulging me and hope that the Minister will attend the debate. <BR /> <BR />Lisburn remains one of only two towns in Northern Ireland where on-street parking charges still apply. That creates an unfair disadvantage for local businesses and visitors. The policy is, quite simply, archaic, undermining the vitality of high streets, pushing shoppers to out-of-town centres that offer free parking and contradicting the "Town centre first" approach. A fair and consistent policy is needed in which either all towns charge or none charge. I propose a first-hour-free system as a practical first step to support trade, footfall and fairness.”
“Let us therefore make it plain today that we support progress but not at the cost of privacy, that we embrace technology but not at the expense of trust and that we defend security but not at the cost of freedom. At the heart of this lies a simple truth that should guide every Government decision: our freedom is not a barcode to be scanned, stored or sold. We will support the motion if it is amended.”
“Let us also remember, as has been talked about in the debate already, that not everyone is digitally equipped, or even able, to participate in such a system. Many older people, particularly those who live in rural areas, and those with limited access to broadband could be left behind or excluded from essential services. The digital divide would deepen, and the people who are in need of support would, once again, be those most at risk of being forgotten. If Westminster insists on pressing ahead with this ill-conceived policy, we must be resolute at Westminster and in the Assembly in saying that it is not acceptable. <BR /> <BR />We will not allow another top-down mandate to override local realities, local rights and local voices.”
“Steve Aiken MLA warned that citizens should not be forced to hand over their privacy in the name of digital efficiency. Both are correct. The amendment is welcome, as it strengthens the motion by recognising that such a scheme will jeopardise personal privacy and open the door to the misuse of data, and we know that once that door is opened, it is rarely closed again.”
“We need only look at recent data leaks, about which we are all very concerned, in many different fields, such as the recent Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) data leak. I did not mean that as a pun. I reiterate that our freedom is not a barcode to be scanned, stored or sold. <BR /> <BR />The Ulster Unionist Party has been clear and consistent that the proposal is intrusive, unnecessary and ill-considered. In the House of Lords, Lord Empey rightly said:”
“At a time that health waiting lists are growing and schools fight for resources, spending millions — the proposer of the motion mentioned a figure of £400 million, but I suggest that it would go way over that, perhaps into the billions — on an untested national ID system is not reform. Rather, it is reckless. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly knows better than most what happens when citizens lose faith in how their data is handled. Northern Ireland's people have lived through decades in which identity was a political currency, particularly for our security forces, where trust, privacy and personal safety were never guaranteed. To many here, the notion that a government database could hold and track their personal information is not reassurance.”
“The ambition is OK, but it is never going to happen. We will support the motion as amended. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly must send a clear and united message, however, that our freedom is not a barcode to be scanned, stored or sold. The Government's plan, as outlined in the Westminster research briefing paper 'Digital ID in the UK', claims to offer efficiency and security. We know that history tells us a different story, however. From the abandoned ID card scheme of the early 2000s to costly IT failures across Departments, grand projects too often drained public coffers and delivered little of value, if any at all.”
“I firmly support the motion, but only if it is amended. The Sinn Féin motion is obviously a very unsubtle attempt to separate Northern Ireland from its rightful place within the United Kingdom. I commend the Member on his speech. He got in as many "Brits" as he could.”
“On the Climate Change Act and its ambitions, the Minister will be aware that the EU has moved in that space to recognise that flexibility and pragmatism may be required for a much more regional approach. Is the Minister not going to respond to that?”
“The latter part of his career was indelibly different from the start of it, but that is OK; it is always well and good to share our differences. He always did so with grace, intellect and a poet's heart. <BR /> <BR />One of the things that I will remember from his tenure happened when Robin Swann was the Health Minister, and it always makes me smile when I think about it. Robin quipped that he was finally glad to meet a man whom he could look in the eye. Perhaps that is proof that, even in politics, humour can bridge any height divide or political divide. I wish him well in his retirement.”
“Evidently, I come from a very different background, culturally and politically, to Michael D Higgins, but I have always admired his boundless energy, his undoubtable wit and the warmth of his unique personality. His deep humanity has left an indelible imprint far beyond the confines of Áras an Uachtaráin and was in evidence, not least, as has been pointed out, when we saw him in the company of his beloved Bernese mountain dogs. As a fellow dog lover, I often think that Minnie, my St Bernard, might well have liked to meet some of his companions. <BR /> <BR />As we know, public service, and the glare that comes with it, is unrelenting, but there is no doubt that Michael D Higgins, towards the latter part of his career, found some energy when it came to his political views, and he was not afraid to share them.”
“The Ulster Unionist Party, while supporting the motion because it reflects the direction of travel that we have long argued for, also makes the point that clear governance, real accountability and independent oversight will be critical. We add this note of caution: reform must simplify, not complicate; it must clarify, not confuse; and it must deliver outcomes, not bureaucracy. Northern Ireland cannot afford another round of restructuring that multiplies agencies, blurs lines and drains resources. We need a regulator that is lean, trusted and effective and works with others rather than sitting above them. <BR /> <BR />We will support the motion as a statement of intent but also as a reminder that the true measure of progress will not be the number of organisations created but the quality of the environment that they protect.”
“An advisory committee representing civic society is a sound proposal, but it must have influence, not just symbolism. Education, support and partnership will achieve much more than enforcement alone.”
“The review's recommendation to exit the current SORPI arrangements is fundamental, because a regulator cannot sit within the same system as the body that it regulates. That separation must be real and decisive if we are serious about restoring integrity to environmental oversight, particularly in waste water management and pollution control. <BR /> <BR />None of this will work without genuine stakeholder buy-in, which has to be front and centre. Farmers, environmental groups, councils and businesses must all be part of designing the systems that will regulate them.”
“The proposal for an environmental audit committee deserves serious consideration. Independence must not mean isolation, because a new regulator that is free from interference must still be answerable to the elected representatives of the people that it serves. That is how public confidence will be rebuilt: through transparency, not through detachment. <BR /> <BR />We also acknowledge the Department's stated intention to strengthen compliance and broaden the use of civil sanctions. Whilst complex, that should be welcomed. Too often, environmental offences are met with token penalties and do little to deter repetition. Enforcement must be visible, fair and proportionate. Only then will it command respect across industry and communities alike. <BR /> <BR />Another area that requires clarity is the Department's relationship with NI Water.”
“However, a map alone will not solve that problem, so once the picture is clear, the focus must be on removing duplication, not adding to it. Creating a new environmental protection agency must not mean replicating existing functions or adding another layer of management, because independence cannot come at the cost of efficiency. The Ulster Unionist Party supports genuine independence for the environmental regulator, but independence must be built on a well-defined mandate, proper resourcing and financial transparency. Anything less risks its becoming a cosmetic exercise — changing logos rather than culture. Independence achieved through structure alone will fail unless it is matched by operational clarity and accountability. <BR /> <BR />Oversight by the Assembly is essential.”
“That makes the debate no less important, because the Assembly must now ensure that what was previously promised is actually delivered and delivered well. <BR /> <BR />The Department has accepted the review's 32 recommendations, but there remains uncertainty, certainly from my perspective, about the pace, the sequencing and the direction. Stakeholders across environmental organisations, farming, business and local government are all waiting for clarity. They want to know not just what will change but how it will affect them, because we need to step in time. Reform imposed without proper engagement will not deliver long-term improvement. <BR /> <BR />The proposal to publish a road map of environmental governance is a positive but overdue step. For too long, the system has been opaque: everyone responsible yet no one accountable.”
“The Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion, because the findings of the independent review of environmental governance were a long time coming, and, if you have read them, you will have seen that they make for some difficult reading. The environmental decline of Lough Neagh is not an isolated failure, but it is the clearest example of the blurred responsibilities, weak enforcement and lack of accountability that exist. Whilst we welcome the motion's objectives, it is fair to say that it was drafted before the Minister's recent announcement. The timing does matter, however. Some of the actions that are called for in the motion are now acknowledged by DAERA and the Minister, and I believe that work has begun.”
“Until we learn to remove the beam from our own eye, we will remain blind to a better future for all our children — Palestinian, Israeli and Northern Irish alike — and —”
“If those who tabled the motion cared as much about our own children as they claim to care about the conflict in the Middle East, they would channel their energy into education reform and mental health support instead of political grandstanding. Northern Ireland faces deep and seemingly intractable problems, but I can think of few moments that illustrate our dysfunction more clearly than the motion. When hypocrisy outweighs humanity, theatre replaces truth and the beam closes our eyes to our own failings, we all lose sense of what really matters. <BR /> <BR />The Ulster Unionist Party will not support the motion. We see it as performative, divisive and deeply hypocritical. It does no justice to the innocent victims who have lost their lives in Israel and Gaza.”
“I am sure that, for full transparency, the Minister will ensure that that review is published. I also understand that the head of the Civil Service is examining the wider handling of the visit. That is the correct and proportionate process for addressing such matters, not the kind of political show trial that we see here today. Until those reviews conclude, the Assembly should resist the temptation to play judge and jury for the sake of a headline. <BR /> <BR />The motion drags the Assembly into performative outrage while our schools cry out for resources, our children wait months for special needs assessments and our teachers struggle to find basic classroom materials.”
“Sinn Féin is quick to spot the fault in someone else but blind to the failings in its own ranks. When Sinn Féin Ministers attended the Bobby Storey funeral during a time of strict COVID restrictions, the rules were ignored. Public faith in government was shattered, yet there was no motion of exclusion, no 12-month sanction and no humility. There was only deflection. The people who justified that now claim to be guardians of the ministerial code. This is not about the rule of law but about the rule of convenience. The rules apply to others when it suits but never to Sinn Féin. <BR /> <BR />The Minister of Education has informed the House that his visit to Israel has already been reviewed by his Department's permanent secretary and found to have followed proper procedure.”
“<BR /> <BR />The author of the motion, Gerry Carroll of People Before Profit, in an attempt to outdo Sinn Féin, accuses the Minister of failing to uphold the rule of law, yet, on 7 October 2023, as Hamas murdered, raped and butchered hundreds of innocent men, women and children, Mr Carroll posted on X, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". That post is still there today. That is hypocrisy at full throttle. It tells us all that we need to know about the double standards at play. <BR /> <BR />We then have Sinn Féin, eager to reclaim the territory staked out by Mr Carroll. Some of its members have met Hamas representatives. Those individuals openly boast of their involvement in acts of terror, yet Sinn Féin now presumes to lecture others on moral responsibility and the rule of law. Once again, it is a case of the mote and the beam.”
“That simple truth should shape how we speak and act, especially when the world is torn by war and grief, particularly in the Middle East, but those driving the motion have chosen something different. They have chosen spectacle over substance and condemnation over consistency. I know that some who have signed the motion have done so from a place of genuine conviction. Their moral compass is far clearer than that of others who have attached themselves to it. Perhaps inadvertently, however, they have allowed themselves to be drawn into an alliance with those who would spin sincerity into spectacle and turn even principle into a prop for politics.”
“We in the Ulster Unionist Party, like the people of Northern Ireland, are horrified by the horrors, the death and the destruction in Israel and Gaza. We recognise that, across Northern Ireland, people hold a range of views on Israel and Palestine, and we note that some have taken issue with the Education Minister's actions. Those who tabled the motion of no confidence, however, should be honest with the people of Northern Ireland. It is politicking, pure and simple, and it will achieve little but the further entrenchment of views and attitudes across our society. <BR /> <BR />I have said it before, and I will say it again: a Palestinian child and an Israeli child are of equal value. Their lives, education and future are all of equal worth.”
“and breached the ministerial code of conduct. In truth, the motion tells us far more about the state of politics in Northern Ireland than it ever will about Paul Givan or the visit to Israel. It is performative and partisan. Worse than that, it misleads the public. Let us call it what it is: political theatre dressed up as moral outrage.”
“We are told that the motion was tabled because the Minister of Education failed”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister will already know that the disabled community is under-represented across probably all employment levels. Does the Minister agree that the Civil Service should lead the way and move beyond reasonable adjustments and set significant ambitions to see some of the most underutilised, most professional people in our communities — those with disabilities — in paid employment?”
“I thank the Minister for the advance notice of the publication of the report. The Committee will consider it for the first time this week. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has said that the agency will be a non-departmental public body. What specific vires or terms of reference does the Minister see the agency having to ensure that there is no crossover or duplication of work with agencies that already exist and that it will not be seen as another barrier to environmentally compliant and sustainable planning applications?”
“Minister, you will be aware that the relationship with farmers across Northern Ireland has been fractious since you came into post. What steps have you taken since last year's meeting at the Eikon centre? I note that you say that you have an open door, and the UFU does not refute that. However, it does not believe you to be listening, particularly around planning and ammonia output, which you mentioned. When planning applications are going in, it wants you to demonstrate an improvement, and the Department, through the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), is refusing those. Is the Department, by default, now failing its own targets?”
“As the Minister rightly points out, and I agree with him, the college is a world-class facility. In that vein, will there be opportunities for other services to use the facility, and will there be opportunities in the future to recover costs for running it?”
“Irregularities and inconsistencies to do with HMOs and planning, as the Minister pointed out, have long occurred across councils. Minister, you have rightly pointed out the powers that councils have. Will you outline what powers you have or steps you might take if councils do not react to your letter?”
“Does the Member agree that one of the disappointing parts of the debate was the disagreement about the fact that you can have ambition for climate measures and assurance on the energy supply? Does he agree that you can do both at the same time?”
“The Member is right, but there are things that we can do to future-proof it. We are all engaged in the ambition to plant more trees, for instance, but where we plant them is important. For instance, if we do not plant them at the edge of roads, they will not fall across the road. There are steps that we can take to prevent road closures and so on, if we think long-term about those things.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Notwithstanding the fact that some good work happened when the Ministers were in place, does the Member agree that some of the things that we are doing are not working and that we need to think slightly differently? Someone from Newcastle commented this morning that some of the flood alleviation measures in one area perhaps just redirect the water in a different way. As I said at the start of the debate, some countries are already leading the way in that space, and we need to think outside the box.”