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 14 of 53.
“We heard that DAERA, by gaining those powers, would be able to close legal loopholes and that the Bill also included powers to establish criminal offences, some of which the Minister outlined, and I am grateful to him for that. Unfortunately, the Bill does not provide powers to Northern Ireland to introduce measures to prohibit the travel of animals under six months old, as it is considered that that could be contrary to the EU pets regulation — 576/2013 — which is in annex 2 to the Windsor framework. <BR /> <BR />In the question-and-answer session with officials, Committee members raised several matters of concern, which are detailed in the Committee's report. The Committee queried the elements of the Bill that do not extend to Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee heard that the Bill contains eight clauses, five of which apply to Northern Ireland, and covers two main topics. The non-commercial movement of cats, dogs and ferrets between Great Britain and countries beyond the United Kingdom is the first one. The second is the welfare of dogs, cats and ferrets that are brought into any part of the UK, including Northern Ireland, from countries beyond the United Kingdom. The Committee heard, however, that it was only the welfare element of the Bill that would apply to Northern Ireland. It encompasses a wide-ranging power that will enable the making of secondary legislation in the Assembly to prohibit the importation of cats and dogs that have been mutilated by, for example, having had their ears cropped or being declawed.”
“The Committee noted, however, that it was unlikely to report by 20 June, as it was a tall order to expect stakeholder replies to be received by the Committee with just over a week's notice given. <BR /> <BR />On 19 June, the Committee received an oral briefing from officials, who highlighted the fact that a legislative consent motion was the most timely and proportionate way forward. They apologised to the Committee for the lateness in bringing the legislative consent memorandum to our attention. With hindsight, they felt that they should have brought the proposals to the Committee at the same time as they had gone to the Executive. The Committee was pleased to hear that DAERA will review the process and aim to avoid such a tight turnaround happening again.”
“In order to move the motion today and adhere to Standing Orders, DAERA requested that the Committee expedite its reporting period and report by 20 June. The Committee considered DAERA's request, given that the Bill is a Government-backed private Member's Bill, with no mechanism for it to be amended once it moves to the House of Lords on 4 July. The Committee agreed that it would aim to expedite its report if an oral briefing from officials were provided on 19 June. The Committee also immediately wrote to several stakeholders for their views: the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, the Ferret Glen rescue centre, the USPCA, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (SOLACE), and the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA).”
“On 12 June, the Committee considered correspondence from the Department seeking the Committee's views on tabling the legislative consent memorandum, which it then laid that day.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the AERA Committee on the LCM for the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill. Members will have read the Committee's report, which was published on 27 June.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer and her interest in the matter. She is obviously over the details of biomethane, but there is also an opportunity to generate energy with AD. Does the Minister's Department have enough capacity to match the output from DAERA in that, and can there be co-design between them to ensure that we have that energy security and can exploit the opportunities to meet our climate and environmental credentials?”
“I am not sure whether the intervention is appropriate, because you have just raised the cost issue. Something that happens in towns at times — I am sure that most people have experienced it — is that the ownership of a building lapses because someone dies, and there is no will or probate to pick it up. Has the Minister considered how the ownership of those buildings will be addressed?”
“Let us, in this moment, grasp it, work collaboratively and collegially with the Minister, be upfront about the information that is there and the challenges that we face and deliver a high-quality Dilapidation Bill.”
“What will success look like in practice for councils, and, more important, for our communities? Where does the community voice sit with regard to what happens after action is secured? Will the legislation empower councils equally, or will rural areas continue to be left behind due to resource constraints? Why are the powers discretionary and not mandatory? What assurances do we have that enforcement will not be patchy across regions? <BR /> <BR />We really want to see the Bill work not just for Lisburn but for places such as Lisnaskea. We would also like sight of the statutory guidance under clause 20 before decisions are taken, because we cannot afford another scenario such as we had with the Agriculture Bill, when we acted without sight of the anticipated replacement scheme.”
“Although the site has been secured a number of times, young people have broken into it and use it for different things. In addition, the fires that are lit there bring extreme danger not just to the young people themselves but to the emergency services that have to respond. Beyond a building being an eyesore and beyond the safety of those who are near that building, we have an obligation to those who have to respond to incidents there. <BR /> <BR />The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the Bill's ambition to modernise a framework that, as the Minister said, dates back to perhaps the Victorian era. The proposed hierarchy of enforcement from maintenance notices to actions on dangerous structures is a step in the right direction. However, important questions remain.”
“As I said, research showed that this has been a topic for discussion for the Ulster Unionist Party for nigh on 52 years, and it has certainly been a focus in our manifesto commitments. We welcome the Second Stage of the Dilapidation Bill, because communities across Northern Ireland, rural and urban alike, are plagued by derelict buildings and neglected sites. They are not just eyesores; they undermine public safety, deter investment and foster antisocial behaviour. <BR /> <BR />I want to home in on and paint a picture of one building that is local to me: Hilden Mill in Lisburn. I am old enough to remember the mill in almost its former glory with people working in it. For around 25 years, however, nobody has been working there, and it has fallen into serious disrepair. Unfortunately, it acts almost like a beacon for young people.”
“<BR /> <BR />Officials advised that the statutory guidance would go into more detail on the test to quantify the level of neglect of dilapidated buildings. Members highlighted the limbo that they feel about unadopted developments where the developer has gone bankrupt and disappeared. Officials advised that a charge could be put on a property via the Land Registry. <BR /> <BR />I hope that I have given the House a flavour of the issues that the Committee can see and that need scrutiny. However, the Committee supports the principles of the Bill and looks forward to considering it in further detail during Committee Stage. <BR /> <BR />I would like to make some remarks on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party and myself.”
“The Committee asked about an inventory of dilapidated properties and sites. Officials advised that Ulster University conducted a study for DAERA in 2017 to estimate the number of affected properties and provide a breakdown. DAERA has now shared that report with the Committee. The Committee queried the impact on rural areas, and officials advised that a property needed to have a negative impact on a neighbourhood, so it is unlikely that a council would act on a stand-alone remote property. Given its remit, the Committee will be very interested in rural equity. The Committee will wish to determine whether that is appropriate, as even remote properties can be dangerous. I will add that agencies turn up to remote properties if they are on fire or if there is antisocial behaviour, and we have a responsibility to those statutory agencies too.”
“If the powers were mandatory, presumably DAERA would need to provide direct financial support to councils; we would like confirmation of that. Officials said that there were resource issues but that the Bill would place the cost of remediation works on the property owner, occupier or interested financial organisation or party in the first instance.”
“At Committee Stage, members will want to ensure that the Bill is robust and broad enough to cover public and council concerns. It is not only falling masonry that makes a building dangerous. Antisocial behaviour can make the public feel that a derelict building or site is dangerous. <BR /> <BR />The Committee queried the 2016 consultation, and officials stated that the responses were broadly supportive and had cross-party support. Officials had recently written to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) to ensure that it was still supportive and had heard that it is. The Committee queried why the Bill aims to bring in only discretionary powers for councils and whether there is a risk of regional disparities, because we already see councils operating in different ways in their interpretation.”
“The Committee will wish to consider the term "amenity", however, in particular, as it is expected that the interpretation of "amenity" will be broad and must be covered in the guidance. The Committee will also be scrutinising the regulation-making powers to ensure that they are appropriate and that they are subject to the negative resolution procedure unless they amend a fixed penalty amount or the definition of "heritage site". At that stage, they will be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure, as we have been informed. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that there will be considerable public interest in the Bill. Members, including members of the Committee, have already had photos sent to them of dilapidated buildings and sites fostering antisocial behaviour, including vandalism, drug activity and arson.”
“<BR /> <BR />Should the Bill come to the Committee, members will be paying close attention to clause 20, which provides for statutory guidance that district councils must have regard to. Members will wish to have sight of the draft guidance to properly scrutinise the Bill. We had a less-than-satisfactory experience with the Agriculture Bill, when we were asked to make a decision without sight of the replacement scheme. That was explained to us by the departmental officials at the time, but, in this instance, we really would like to have sight of the guidance to consider it alongside the Bill, Minister. <BR /> <BR />We then heard that the Bill provides a definition of "interested person", that of "owner", that of "building" and that of "land".”
“The Committee was pleased to see that the Bill also provides for cost recovery for the council where it has taken the necessary remedial action itself, registering a charge on the land in the statutory charges register until costs are recovered and also registering a dilapidation notice in the register to allow a property to be sold with appropriate information. That is good news, perhaps, for the high street in particular. <BR /> <BR />We heard that the remaining clauses cover a range of matters, including potential obstruction by an occupier, the power to require ownership information, consultation with planning regarding heritage sites, and appeals against a notice issued under the Act.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee heard that the aim is to enable councils to tackle dilapidation at an earlier stage through a hierarchy of notices dealing with different levels of dilapidation. Those notices are dealt with in clauses 1 to 10, covering an increasing level of dilapidation from a maintenance notice to a dilapidation notice to a dangerous structure notice. Finally, at the highest level, it covers immediate action that a council can take to deal with a building that is considered to be dangerous.”
“That is not 1973, which is in and around the vintage of when some of us were born: the roaring '70s. <BR /> <BR />The Committee held an evidence session on 26 June with officials from DAERA's neighbourhood environment quality branch, and we considered the outline of the 31 clauses and two schedules. We then heard that the Bill is intended to give councils powers to deal with dilapidation, dangerous buildings and neglected sites and a fit-for-purpose enforcement regime. Those should reflect powers that are already available in the rest of the UK, as the Minister has outlined, and will enhance the cost-recovery powers for councils. That could, potentially, be one of the more difficult things to deliver on.”
“Thank you. I return to the much-anticipated Dilapidation Bill, regardless of whether the Member thinks that it came quickly enough or not. I was reading through the papers in regard to our responses to dilapidation, and it goes back to about 1973, actually. So, it is not even that we have been waiting for 10 years for this but a lot longer. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I welcome the Second Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. Committee members have all seen the negative impact on our communities of dilapidated buildings and neglected sites, and, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, many of them pose a danger to the public. The Committee welcomes the modernisation of the legislation, as it has been a long time coming, and a lot of the current legislation dates to the Victorian era.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. It is an interesting point. I do not necessarily disagree, but I think that the people of Northern Ireland have suffered from too little politics for many years. If it means that we have to stay here for longer in the day, we certainly will have to truck through.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My opening remarks will not be made as the Chair of the Committee; rather, I want to address the Minister's final statement about the speed at which the legislation has come forward. I want to be clear that I am speaking on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party and me. It is much better that we make good legislation rather than rushed legislation and that we leave a legacy of being competent in our jobs.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I hope to ask the Minister about the corporal punishment piece. I do not wish to re-engage the discussion between the two Members. The Minister mentioned that corporal punishment was abolished in 1987. I agree with the Member up to that point: I was one of those boys who had the hand caned off him. People, probably including politicians at the time, would have defended the use of the cane in an all-boys school such as the one that I was in. However, we have learned since then. We have learned an awful lot about autism and other neurodivergent conditions. We now have the evidence to suggest that it is time to repeal article 4(1)(c), as we did with corporal punishment.”
“We cannot patch this up anymore with policy promises or sticking plasters; it is time for structural, statutory and child-centred change.”
“What we have today is based on what we knew at the time. In 1998, we were not talking about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and we did not understand that behaviour is also a form of communication, particularly for non-verbal children. The Department has developed good policies through its nurture-based, emotionally supportive and trauma-informed practice. Those of themselves kick against article 4(1)(c). <BR /> <BR />This is not a call for perfection to be achieved overnight; it is a call for progress that is rooted in the rights of the child, supported by the professionalism of our staff and shaped by the lived experiences of families who have waited for far too long to be heard. The use of restrictive practices must be an absolute last resort, not a fallback borne of insufficient alternatives.”
“It is pretty close. We have to be clear that no teacher wants to be in a situation in which restraint feels like the only option. He painted that picture really well. Our teachers are working in increasingly complex situations, but, right now, too many are working in those spaces because the alternatives are unavailable or underdeveloped. That is a failure of system design, not of individual intent. <BR /> <BR />We need compassionate reform. That means repealing article 4(1)(c) of the Education Order 1998, which allows for reasonable force in a way that is too vague and too open to misuse. It means commissioning an update to the 2013 ETI report to reflect today's realities in special schools. It also means investing in the environmental and relational factors that reduce stress before it escalates.”
“The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), which represents school leaders here, has said plainly that, without statutory guidance and training, schools are left to navigate a legal and ethical minefield on their own. That is not safe for staff or pupils. As the Member for — where are you from, Peter? East Belfast? No, you are from North Down.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Children's Commissioner has described the use of seclusion as draconian; the ombudsman has highlighted that, since 2017, at least 20 cases have involved children being placed in isolation without their parents' knowledge; and the Royal College of Nursing felt compelled to walk away from the Department's working group on restrictive practices due to the lack of clear safeguards and ambition to truly eliminate harm. However, I have to be clear: this must not be about blaming teachers or classroom staff; far from it. Those professionals are being asked to respond to increasingly complex needs — sometimes without the training, resources or space to do so safely or ethically. We must listen to special school leaders who say, "We need clear guidance, yes, but we also need more staff, more space and more time".”
“As mentioned, Deirdre Shakespeare's testimony about her son, Harry, who was restrained in ways that she was not even told about, has been a rallying cry for change. As she said, no parent should ever have to learn what has happened to their child many, many weeks and months after the fact. Her campaign for Harry's law, to make the reporting of such incidents mandatory, is based on one simple idea: that sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
“I agree with the Chair of the Committee that, if it is not in place for youth settings, why would we deem it appropriate for younger children? <BR /> <BR />The Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion, because it goes to the heart of what it means to deliver an education system that upholds the rights and dignity of every child, particularly those with the most complex needs. We must be honest about what has brought us here. For too long, parents have been raising the issue of the use of restraint and seclusion in our schools. Those are not abstract concerns; they are their children, and, often, those children are frightened and misunderstood, and, in some cases, they have been harmed.”
“It is four years and two months since I spoke in a debate on this issue. At that stage, the Department undertook to issue interim guidance. It is regrettable that we have not fixed the problem, but I am not going to point the finger at anyone — neither the Minister nor the Department. When I looked at the motion, I thought that it is helpful, because its language is not inflammatory in any way, and its tone captures the essence of the difficulties that are faced by parents and some educators in some schools. We should work towards removing article 4(1)(c), but, unlike what has been pitched here so far, it is not about removing it in the absence of something better; it is about developing something better with the ambition to remove it, because what is there is evidently not fit for purpose.”
“We create laws to run our society and our communities, and our legislation should be much more readable, understandable and accessible. Legislation needs to be more easily reached or researched, because it can sometimes be hard to blinking find things, if you do not know the right questions to ask. <BR /> <BR />I am not speaking for the Committee, but I enjoyed scrutinising the Bill. It was worthwhile, and it sets us up for a good session as we go into the last year and a half with the Minister and his Department and any other ideas that might come forward. The Committee wants to keep a good relationship with the Minister to ensure that any legislation that is brought forward is not only fit for purpose but fit for the future.”
“I also thank the Minister and his team, because they demonstrated that they were listening by extending the scheme and keeping it open. That relates primarily to clause 1 and the discretionary payment, but we should have been exercised about the fact that, for all the good that it does, we were incredibly frustrated that other growers had not seen the value of the scheme. That probably indicates that the scheme is fit to be revised. Despite the best endeavours of just about everyone, an amendment was not possible. <BR /> <BR />I have already spoken about the bee in my bonnet: the short title of the Bill. I will go back to that issue, because it is great not to come from an academic or university background in regard to why we have legalese. That is not why we create laws.”
“The Committee and I did not come at that issue from a legalistic or legislative angle but from the angle of the man or woman on the street. If they are searching for legislation that pertains to what they are doing, it is nearly better if it says on the front of the tin what it is that you will be looking for. In the wider context, we need to have a discussion about the short titles of all Bills. The Bill is called the "Agriculture Bill", and that probably sent a signal that perhaps it might morph into something a bit bigger than just POs. <BR /> <BR />I thank the stakeholder groups that engaged throughout the process. At a late stage, when they saw that everyone had exhausted every avenue to improve clause 1, we all realised where we were with the Bill.”
“First, if you do not mind, I will speak as Robbie Butler, because this is the first time that I have chaired a Committee. You can do the scores on the doors at the end of the first session, guys, but it has been a real privilege to chair a very informed and passionate Committee. The members are passionate about their remit, and that was evident in the deliberations on the Bill. I leaned heavily — I do not mind saying so — on the people who have been around the sector for much longer than me, and that was a great help. I pay tribute to the Committee Clerk and her team, who were of great help, the research team and, indeed, the Bill Office team. We wrestled with the Bill Office team a number of times about the amendment and the Bill's short title, which might have seemed like small beer to some people.”
“That also allows for applications to the new three-year programme, which starts in September 2025, and an opportunity to co-design the new scheme with the horticulture sector. That was a major success for the Committee. <BR /> <BR />In the end, the Committee agreed not to request any amendments to the Bill, but that did not mean all members were in support of all the clauses, as most Committee members did not agree to clause 1 as drafted. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill. I again thank Assembly and departmental officials for all their help throughout the Committee Stage and highlight the good working relationships that have been established. <BR /> <BR />I will now make some brief comments on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party.”
“At Committee Stage, we wrote to the Minister to ask whether he would consider an amendment to clause 1 to ring-fence funding and set an agreed baseline above which the Minister could then exercise discretionary powers. The Committee also asked whether the Minister would be minded to consider an amendment to the short title to better reflect the specific remit of the Bill regarding aid to the fruit and vegetable sector, information provision and promotion measures. Although the Minister was not minded to consider those amendments, the Committee was pleased that its evidence and discussion with officials encouraged the Minister to think again and agree not to close the scheme at the end of 2025. We are all grateful for that, Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was also concerned that the PO model, although successful for the mushroom sector, was not being used by other types of growers. DAERA acknowledged that there was work to be done in that regard. The Committee has held an evidence session on the Department's horticulture pilot scheme, and members hope that that will eventually lead to better collaboration and the development of other growers. The Committee looks forward to being notified on the progress and outworking of that scheme and others in due course. <BR /> <BR />The Committee put much focus on its deliberations on clause 1 and the fact that it makes payment of the current FVAS discretionary.”
“Members had no sight of any details of a replacement support scheme for the horticulture sector, as the review of the current scheme has not yet been completed by DAERA. The Committee hopes that any future enabling Bill will be brought forward only when there is a well-developed draft policy scheme, so that members can properly assess its impact. <BR /> <BR />Some members felt that the Bill was premature, while others accepted that the Minister required discretion over his budget and noted the risks associated with the closure of the English scheme while a mandatory funding scheme remained open in Northern Ireland. The Committee recognised that, without the Bill, DAERA could make no changes or improvements to the current schemes, as were requested by the mushroom sector.”
“Although it is entitled the "Agriculture Bill", the specific remit of the Bill and the lack of responses from the wider horticulture sector, such as soft fruit growers, led to our considerations being about the mushroom industry, which was extremely concerned about the impact on the sector. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is a short one, consisting of six clauses. However, the level of scrutiny that the Committee afforded to it at 13 meetings shows that members were aware of its significance to the mushroom sector and its potential significance to the wider horticulture sector. The Committee felt that it had been placed in a difficult position because the Bill is enabling legislation with wide powers, as the Minister outlined, albeit with a narrow remit.”
“I thank the Minister for his kind words about the Chair and members of the AERA Committee. I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the AERA Committee at the Final Stage of the Agriculture Bill, which is the first Bill to come before the Committee in this mandate. <BR /> <BR />The purpose of the Bill, which contains six substantive clauses, is to provide for the modification of assimilated direct legislation in relation to aid in the fruit and vegetable sectors. That pertains to information and promotion schemes for agriculture products and for connected purposes.”
“The Minister will agree that the burning of fossil fuels is a massive contributor to the pollution of our air. Will the Minister update us on anaerobic digestion and its benefits when it comes to promoting a clean air strategy? Will he outline what the hold-ups are in interdepartmental working?”
“Northern Ireland's farming community is being choked by rules that no sane person would design and that, certainly, no Minister who had ever set foot in a yard or a field would defend. The people who put food on our tables are being treated as second-class citizens. It is time for DEFRA to reverse course, for DAERA to find its backbone and for this nonsense to end.”
“<BR /> <BR />Last week, I watched Gareth Gault from Grassmen, a respected and informed voice in the agriculture sector, online. He outlined with clarity and a sense of frustration the real-world impact that the scheme is having. What he said reflects what I hear on the ground, because, on the same day, at 6.30 am, I took a call from a constituent, a second-generation machinery dealer and farmer, who was exhausted and desperate. He was begging for help. He is asking not for special treatment but to be able to trade in the way in which he has been able to for 50 years without being strangled by pointless bureaucracy. <BR /> <BR />The scheme is not about cleanliness or biosecurity. Our businesses have always complied. It is about political cowardice, cross-departmental failure and a complete disconnect from the real world.”
“I highlight yet another absurdity that has been born from Brexit and the Windsor framework, and it is the deeply flawed Northern Ireland plant health label scheme. Introduced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and nodded through by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, the scheme is actively dismantling the ability of rural businesses to trade freely in what, we are told, is still part of the United Kingdom. The rules surrounding the movement of used agricultural and forestry machinery from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are simply unworkable. They are anti-business and anti-farmer. There is no equivalent requirement for machinery moving in the other direction, so where is the logic and the fairness?”
“This should not be about taking sides but about defending humanity and the rule of law. It is about demanding a future where Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and security through a credible two-state solution. <BR /> <BR />Our amendment is principled and honest and, by golly, it is absolutely necessary, given the state of the debate today. I urge Members to support our amendment. I urge the Alliance Party and the SDLP to reflect on the points that I have made, particularly about balance and that Palestinian children and Israeli children are of equal value. That is in our amendment but is missing from the motion. This is a complex issue, but we need to deal with it with compassion, clarity and accuracy.”
“It rejects collective punishment and forced displacement. It calls for immediate access for aid and medicine and the urgent release of all hostages. It acknowledges Iran's destabilising influence through its ongoing support of Hamas and other proxy forces. <BR /> <BR />As we all did, Mr Speaker, I am sure that you woke up this morning to uncertain and unconfirmed reports of a possible ceasefire between Israel and Iran. While some have welcomed that as a breakthrough, the situation remains highly volatile. Iran has denied any formal agreement, as far as I know, and there are already claims of violations from both sides. We must, however, be clear-eyed: a few hours of quiet does not signal peace. Nevertheless, even the whisper of de-escalation should compel renewed diplomatic pressure to turn fragile moments into lasting change.”
“We have witnessed the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid and the denial of food, water, fuel and medicine into Gaza. That is not a tragic accident of war: it was a systemic and calculated denial of human dignity. I suggest that it contravenes the Geneva Convention in the sense of lawful military conduct. No Government can or should justify starvation as a weapon. <BR /> <BR />Our amendment responds to all of that. It condemns terrorism and:”