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 15 of 53.
“I will take nothing from someone who tweeted on 7 October and said "Up the resistance".”
“The conduct and scale of its military campaign has caused immense civilian destruction. Entire communities lie in ruins: schools, hospitals and refugee camps have been bombed and thousands of people, many of them children, have died. <BR /> <BR />I will not stand up here and defend any country or any military force that kills children and innocent civilians. It is not wrong to say that that is what our amendment does: it gives balance. It says that that is deplorable.”
“There is always a but. The Member from North Antrim, who is not here now, also talked about the "but", but introduced the "but", because there is nuance and there is a story behind the story. <BR /> <BR />We have to be absolutely clear here. There were acts of terror on 7 October 2023. Hamas, backed by the Iranian regime, carried out the deadliest assault on Jewish people since the Holocaust. Over 1,200 Israelis were murdered: civilians were burned alive in their homes, children were executed and more than 250 people were taken hostage. No reasonable or responsible Parliament would fail to condemn such atrocities. Equally, however, we cannot look away from what has happened in Gaza in the months since then. Whilst we would say that Israel has the right to defend itself, it does not have the right to unlimited military action.”
“I really appreciate that. The Member has made a really good point. There was a point in the debate where we talked about the Alliance Party and the SDLP calling out Hamas in previous motions. A quick check, however, revealed that those motions were never just about single issues: there was always a bit of balance. That is what we sought to do today.”
“I will accept that from the Speaker. To be honest, however, I would not mind chuntering from someone who was in the Chamber about something that was said before. I will give way to the Member from Upper Bann.”
“No. If you do not mind, I will try to use my time.”
“You have missed most of the debate. Please do not make noises when you were not here for the debate.”
“Our amendment, unlike the motion, affirms that every child, whether they are Israeli or Palestinian, is of equal value. If anyone suggests that they are not supporting it because the word "genocide" is missing, they will be hit back with the fact that they do not see every child as having equal value. That is what they will not be supporting if they do not support our amendment. <BR /> <BR />The motion includes really important elements, and I agree with much of it — the call for a ceasefire, the demand for humanitarian aid and the emphasis on human rights — but it also presents a partial account of a deeply complex situation. We have a deeply complex situation. It is incredibly complex. It is often referred to in this place, and some of us do not even understand it. <BR /> <BR />Minister, you are just in, and you are making noises.”
“Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I will whizz through my speech and then address some of the points that were made. <BR /> <BR />It was important for us to offer an amendment today, because the sense that I get from the motion and from the Member for West Belfast who has just spoken — he talked about divesting from Israel — is that some people would divest Israel from the river to the sea. This is not about Israel's actions since Hamas's attack on 7 October. Those people would divest from Israel regardless of Israel's actions. Our amendment, however, calls out Israel. It deplores some of the actions that Israel has taken, and I will get to that. <BR /> <BR />We needed to table the amendment, because the motion needed balance.”
“I associate myself with the remarks that you made about the families bereaved on that dangerous road. As someone who has attended multiple incidents on behalf of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS), the trauma involved in a fatal road accident is unimaginable, and it goes further than the families. <BR /> <BR />Minister, at a recent joint Committee meeting with the Infrastructure Committee, it became evident to me that there has not been interdepartmental working for some time on a project of such a scale. Will any lessons be learned from that perspective? It became evident in the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee that farmers and landowners had not been thought about in the complexity of the project.”
“I thank the Minister for clearing that up. I disagree: I do not think that the public misunderstand that aspect of sentencing. They understand that, for serious crime, sentences are too lenient and that, in some cases, no justice is handed out to victims.”
“It is not about my ability, as someone with absolute experience; what we are reflecting today is the pressure that is felt in the community. <BR /> <BR />I welcome most of what the Minister suggested, but there is one question that I will ask. You said at the start of your opening remarks that sentencing is misunderstood, but you did not say who it was misunderstood by. Can you tell me who you meant when you said that sentencing, including lenient sentencing, was misunderstood?”
“Well, I am just suggesting. <BR /> <BR />I thank Danny Baker from West Belfast, because he talked about the need to separate this from children. If we want to get ahead of the stream, we need to put a big effort into making sure that our young children do not fall foul of the sins of their fathers and mothers or whatever and do not end up in the judicial system. Joanne Bunting was forensic, as usual, in her analysis of the gaps and the failures. Jonny Buckley spoke of his experience of helping individuals affected by lenient sentences and then seeing people walking the streets and the fear that that instils. That is why I go back to the fact that the public do not have confidence. That is why we are here today.”
“<BR /> <BR />The motion calls for urgent reform, including a consultation on a sentencing council for Northern Ireland, and the basic dignity for victims of receiving a written copy of sentencing remarks. <BR /> <BR />I will very briefly go through some of the comments that were made, and the Minister might want to make a point of clarity. Justin McNulty reminded us that it is not just about in-contact crime; there is also the rise of digital crime. That is something that we need to get ahead of. Mark H talked about gender inequality. When you talked about that, Mark, the thought that sprang to my mind was that perhaps there is more space in the women's prison and therefore women are more likely to be handed a judicial sentence. That indicates that we are not passing sentence on men because there is no room for them, which is bonkers.”
“Guys, I used to work in the Prison Service; it is an awfully difficult job. I will shout about it, because it is a job that I loved dearly. One of the failures that we have — it is not necessarily mentioned in the motion — is the fact that there are too many individuals in our prisons. I think that it was Mr Durkan who spoke about the gender disparity: I totally agree with him. Our judiciary cannot even send some people to the right places. Our jails are full of people who, perhaps, need more help with mental health issues or addictions and stuff. That stops us providing the proper rehabilitation of the inmates who are there. We cannot rehabilitate properly when we do not have the space and capacity and when the staff are beleaguered. We will work with the Minister to fix those things.”
“If that is what you want to call them, Minister, fill your boots. <BR /> <BR />I will not hold the debate to one type of crime, which is what we have centred around. There was public outrage more recently about the torture and killing of animals. I will refer to one instance to reorientate us. Members will remember the appalling death of Luna the dog, and the fact that the perpetrator's sentencing seemed to be disconnected from the harm that was enacted. I remind the House of what, unfortunately, happened: the dog was beaten with a breeze block and then buried alive. The sentence was 17 weeks or something. It was absolutely appalling. <BR /> <BR />It has been noted today that nearly 80% of prisoners in Northern Ireland are repeat offenders. That tells us everything that we need to know. The current system is not working.”
“I thank the Minister. I never used the word "vigilantism": I referred to "self-styled online child protection groups" —”
“The justice system should never leave the public feeling that they must take matters into their own hands. I am not suggesting that —”
“I will let you in again in a minute or two. I want to make a bit of progress, if that is OK. <BR /> <BR />I want to make this point: we see the consequences of inaction played out in the public space with the rise of self-styled online child protection groups. Most of us probably see them in our Facebook feeds. We can understand why they are there. Sometimes, perhaps, those groups put themselves in danger and act in ways that may be seen to be inappropriate by the police or the judiciary, but their core aim is to address what they perceive to be lenient sentencing, particularly around child harm. If they feel that the judiciary or we are failing them, they will act. It is our job to reflect their frustrations. That should set alarm bells ringing.”
“I will let you in again in a wee minute or two, because I am going to mention you again.”
“I totally accept and agree with the Minister's point, but it is not the point that I was making. I was not suggesting that it was thought to be too lenient; I was saying that it was found to be too lenient, but the court could do nothing about it because the process had been followed. That was my point. That is what is wrong: if the court understands that the sentence that was passed down was too lenient but can do nothing about it because the process had been followed, the process needs to be looked at.”
“<BR /> <BR />We see the consequences of inaction in —”
“That is wrong. It is utterly wrong. <BR /> <BR />That is not just a legal technicality. It cuts to the heart of public faith in the justice system, a system that is considered to be unduly lenient when it undermines confidence in justice. Even then, courts may choose not to intervene, as I have outlined. That gap between principle and practice is what the motion is trying to address. I welcome the fact that the Minister has put on record some of the changes that she intends to make, but I am not sure that they encapsulate the situation that I have just outlined, which is the difference between the DPP asking for a lenient sentence to be looked at and it being fixed to the ground, because, if the court did not make a mistake in the sentencing, it cannot be found to have been too lenient.”
“They were found guilty of rape and sexual abuse of a child who was under 13, alongside offences relating to class A drugs and the unlawful removal of that child. One received a nine-year sentence and the other just 6·5 years, yet the Court of Appeal, while accepting the concerns about leniency from the Director of Public Prosecutions, declined to alter the sentence because it could not — because the law stipulates that the judge or the court must have got it wrong; whether it was lenient or not is not something that the Court of Appeal can look at.”
“The motion respects that and acknowledges the complexity of the cases that come before the courts — it is never easy — but the motion also recognises the importance that ongoing judicial training, as directed by the Lady Chief Justice, should be central to that. <BR /> <BR />The motion confronts a deeply uncomfortable truth: for many victims and, probably more noticeably, members of the public, sentencing decisions in some of the most serious crimes, including violent assaults, repeat offending and, yes, sexual offences against children, have been perceived as lenient to the point of injustice. I need only to go back to 2023, when a deeply disturbing case was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions: two men were convicted — one, after the trial — on a guilty plea.”
“<BR /> <BR />Today's motion speaks of the growing crisis in confidence, where victims, survivors and the wider public are left questioning whether the sentences handed down truly reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed. I note in some of the commentary, which has been fair, that we must separate serious crime with enduring harm from petty crime, because they are two very different things. <BR /> <BR />The Ulster Unionist Party recognises the independence and integrity of the judiciary, and we must not lose sight of the fact that the judiciary has paid a heavy price in this country over many years.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. It has been a genuinely excellent debate. I enjoyed all the contributions, and I will reference some of those when I get through a number of points that I want to make myself. <BR /> <BR />Our justice system must do more than just process cases, as has been reiterated by many today. It must inspire confidence that justice is being served, because the purpose of justice, in its pure sense, is to give justice to the victims. Whilst I agree with the Minister and with the amendment that rehabilitation must form a crucial part of that, the first role of the judiciary is to see that justice is done.”
“We are asking our family farmers to lead the way. We need to lead the way. Let us take this opportunity not just to withdraw the flawed consultation but to start again better. Let us involve farmers, environmental groups, scientists, rural communities and industry in a co-designed, evidence-led approach that balances sustainability with viability. What we need now is not blame or bureaucracy but a shared pathway to recovery that restores confidence, protects our waters and secures the future of farming in Northern Ireland.”
“On Mr McAleer's point about rural communities. Farming and agriculture uphold way more than just family farms. I accept that that interconnectedness makes it difficult from your perspective, Minister, in designing those things. However, the industry is absolutely clear about where it is going. That is why we need a reset and a strategy that respects farmers, rewards best practice and reflects the collective responsibility that we all share in protecting our environment. That includes collaboration between the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Minister for Infrastructure, particularly around the chronic underinvestment in waste water infrastructure, which continues to contribute to pollution across the region. As legislators, we must make sure that any statutory body that we have sets the pace.”
“If we isolate agriculture, whilst ignoring those other pressures, we risk making the same mistakes again. Worse still, we risk losing the confidence of rural communities, the communities who want to be part of the solution but, too often, feel as if they are being treated as the problem.”
“<BR /> <BR />I regret that the motion in its current form does not go far enough in recognising that agriculture is not the only source of pollution affecting Lough Neagh, nor is it the only sector in need of reform. Water quality in our rivers and lakes is being degraded not just by nutrient run-off but by inadequate waste water treatment infrastructure, industrial discharge — we had an incredible debate yesterday about what was happening at Mobuoy — climate change, temperature rises and invasive species such as zebra mussels that have an effect on the ecology of Lough Neagh. The question of whether to dredge or not to dredge also remains contentious. Those wider factors must be part of the conversation and not simply pushed to the sidelines.”
“Thank you. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Member for reminding the House of that. That draconian tax by the Labour Government has been a topic of great debate here. There are also the unmet pressures of bovine TB, the tariffs and the nutrients action programme. In reality, we need to step together, because, as I have said, the environmental responsibilities are shared and should not be shirked. That is why I support the call for the withdrawal of the consultation at this point. I do so not to abandon progress but to create space for a better, fairer more joined-up approach that is evidence-based, co-designed and genuinely multi-sectoral.”
“With serious and real pressures growing on family farms in Northern Ireland, we must, without doubt, face up to our environmental responsibilities — we absolutely have to — but we must not break farmers in doing so.”
“<BR /> <BR />The motion talks about the 3,500 farms that face the prospect of stricter phosphorus limits, but the more I talk to farmers, the more they realise that they will all be impacted, whether they are involved in arable farming, smaller-scale farming or hill farming, and that the programme risks affecting all of them negatively. The proposals are not being made in a vacuum; they come at a time of immense financial pressure, workforce stress and a growing sense of disconnect between policymakers and those working the land. <BR /> <BR />Only last Sunday, at a service of remembrance, hundreds gathered to honour those who had died on farms through tragic accidents or by suicide. That reality is a sobering reminder of the toll that pressures are already taking on our farming community.”
“I rise on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. We will support today's motion. We tried to improve on it, but, hopefully, our words will bring some clarity. The motion rightly reflects the deep concern and, in many cases, rising frustration that is felt in our farming and agri-food sectors regarding the direction and detail of the nutrients action programme consultation 2026-29. <BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that improving water quality in Lough Neagh and across our rivers is essential. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber or, certainly, in the rural communities that I have spoken to denies the scale of the problem. However, we must be honest: the proposals that are on the table risk alienating the very people whose buy-in we require. Their expertise and practical action are essential to achieving real and lasting change.”
“I was at the same meeting with the OEP. One of the things that the OEP alluded to was the fact that it has a particular responsibility for the environment. However, the Minister's responsibility is for agriculture and rural affairs as well. That makes it complex for the Minister: the OEP has a single-minded objective, but that is just one part of the Minister's remit.”
“At the Balmoral show, we heard that farmers are committed to playing their part in improving water quality, but the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) has warned, and continues to warn, that proposals fail to reflect the costs involved for farmers, the complexity of on-farm decision-making and the risks, potentially undermining environmental progress and farm viability.”
“That could lead to approaches with no carrot, just stick. With constrained budgets, there are concerns that the sticks outnumber the carrots. <BR /> <BR />We have continued our programme of external meetings and of hearing from stakeholders about the impact of funding shortfalls. The Committee looks forward to engaging with the Department on addressing its priorities throughout the year. As a general point, I highlight the fact that, although DAERA is leading many climate change actions, all Members need to be mindful of the relevant cross-cutting expenditure and its effectiveness in delivering the outcomes needed for a just transition for the whole of Northern Ireland.”
“The Minister pointed out the colossal amount of money that will be required to clear up the site, which is mind-boggling. In addition, at last week's meeting, we heard from officials about the new horticulture pilot scheme, which has an allocation of £7·7 million. Having recently completed the Committee Stage of the Agriculture Bill, the Committee was pleased to see development in the horticulture sector and feels that that is an untapped growth area for the wider agri-food sector. We look forward to seeing the uptake of those schemes, but we caution against the total budget being scooped up by larger organisations to the detriment of smaller growers with innovative ideas. Members have recently expressed concern that incentives are lacking to support farmers to play their part in improving the environment.”
“At its meeting last week, the Committee heard that much of the climate change spend is now mainstreamed into areas such as the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP) and the Lough Neagh action plan. As I said previously in the Chamber, the Committee was pleased to hear that the Executive had also agreed indicative earmarked resource DEL allocations to DAERA at the June monitoring round of £1·4 million for employers' National Insurance contributions and £5 million for Lough Neagh. <BR /> <BR />I will now look at areas of spending that, I am sure, the Committee will discuss with the Minister in the not-too-distant future. When the Minister was here earlier, we heard about the remediation of the Mobuoy site, on which the legal case has been finalised, and the fact that a consultation is now taking place.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee remains concerned by the disparity between the resource DEL bids and the allocations for specific statutory functions and projects, ranging from as little as one sixth to around one half of what was bid for. The Committee is, of course, pleased that the Executive agreed to earmark resource DEL of over £300 million for agriculture, environment, fisheries and rural development, which was a really good piece of collaborative work in the Executive. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has considered the Minister's decisions over the past year to allocate funding towards his top priorities, which include tackling climate change and protecting the natural environment.”
“Specifically, that bid is for £4 million for tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI); £2·3 million for the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) and estates improvements; £1·3 million for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's (NIEA) country parks improvements; and £1·3 million for scientific equipment for the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI). <BR /> <BR />The Committee has held a number of meetings with the Minister and officials on the budgetary pressures in 2024-25 and those going into 2025-26. I highlighted a range of those pressures across DAERA's remit in the Chamber on 19 May.”
“DAERA is relying on the fact that it is early in the financial year and that, in the past, the Executive have funded statutory duties throughout the year, through perhaps other monitoring rounds. <BR /> <BR />Following the review of DAERA's estimated 2025-26 non-cash depreciation and impairment charges, there is a projected £39·8 million requirement against an opening allocation of £31·8 million. DAERA has therefore bid for £8 million of ring-fenced resource DEL as part of the monitoring round. As part of June monitoring, DAERA has bid for £8·9 million in capital DEL as part of managing down the Minister's opening overcommitment.”
“<BR /> <BR />Officials advised of a non-ring-fenced resource DEL bid of £3·2 million for bovine tuberculosis compensation and that current estimates indicate that the existing allocation is not adequate to deal with the issue. The compensation is, of course, a statutory obligation for DAERA. At this stage last year, the Department bid for £28·8 million at June monitoring and received only £5·5 million, which covered half of the £11 million bid for bovine tuberculosis compensation alone. This year, the situation is no better at this stage. We heard from DAERA officials last Thursday that the compensation amount for 2025-26 is estimated to be around £47 million compared with around £43 million in 2024-25 and that the overall cost of the programme is estimated at around £65 million compared with £60 million in 2024-25.”
“The Committee recognises that the final budget remains an extremely difficult outcome for DAERA, and, at last week's meeting, we discussed with officials the bids for June monitoring to determine the extent of the pressures. We heard that the Department was asked to provide the Department of Finance with details of reduced requirements, bids reclassifications, technical issues to be addressed, annually managed expenditure (AME) changes or non-budget movements and potential equality impacts for bids and reclassifications. We were advised that DAERA has no reduced requirements, reclassifications, AME changes or non-budget movements and that no adverse equality impacts of its bids have been identified at this stage.”
“It is significantly lower than the pivotal provisions for 2023-24 at around £764 million. The total net capital budget is £119·5 million for 2025-26 compared with total provisions of around £97·5 million for 2024-25. However, those allocations do not come close to what was bid for by DAERA, so, although any additional resource in June monitoring will be welcome, it will be unlikely to be anywhere near sufficient. Obviously, that will become more evident as we move through the year. <BR /> <BR />In last week's debate, I gave the example of the capital DEL, where the allocation is £119·5 million, which is £7·1 million less than DAERA's £126·6 million of inescapable and high-priority bids.”
“I thank the Finance Minister, on behalf of the Committee, for tabling the motion for debate today. The Committee continues to assist the AERA Minister and his Department to achieve the best outcomes within DAERA's budget allocation. It is worth highlighting the fact that, compared with last year, the Committee can now support and scrutinise the Minister's spending decisions in line with a Programme for Government and the Department's business plan. <BR /> <BR />Moving to the Budget itself, I will quickly remind Members of the allocations for DAERA and then move on to some specifics that the Committee has been considering with stakeholders and DAERA officials in evidence sessions. <BR /> <BR />Overall, DAERA has £630·7 million resource DEL, which is a £21·7 million increase on this point in 2024-25.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, and thank you, Minister, for your welcome announcement on what was an appalling assault on our environment. You outlined one of the significant barriers to reparations, that is, the costs. It has been estimated that the site generated in the region of more than £40 million. Are any steps or levers available to the Minister and his Department to recover those costs through the profits that were made from that site so that a strong message could be sent to those who deliberately assault our environment?”
“Every day of their life, farmers work to provide the food that we need to survive and that is so important to our economy in this country; it sustains rural towns and communities. <BR /> <BR />I pay tribute to the families across Northern Ireland, this island and these islands who have been affected by death on a farm. Those people serve us every day to give us the best that they can, often unrecognised. I also offer this challenge locally: we can and must do better to protect their lives. We must take action, and it must be more than words. We must embrace our farmers in a way that shows that we value them and that we are going to protect them.”
“However, I did not know about the physical and mental toll on farmers. Over the past six months, it has become evident to me that there is much more work that we need to do. <BR /> <BR />I have said in many speeches that I was in the fire service. You all know that. Everybody understands that being a firefighter is a very dangerous job — people rightly hold you up — but steps have been taken over decades to improve safety for firefighters. The same is true of the Prison Service and the Police Service. Anywhere where there is a calculable risk, the Government take action to protect the lives of the people who serve. I contend today that we undervalue our farmers and their families. Many families sat in that service yesterday having lost a loved one, whether through an accident on the farm or suicide.”