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 5 of 53.
“I tried to intervene. I thought that I would be Billy Big Robbie, if you like, but, unfortunately, I found that they were not in a receptive mood. I could not engage them in conversation at all. I then had a conversation with a local shop owner. Regretfully, that shop owner, who has spoken to the PSNI, the local chamber of commerce and industry and the local council on the issue, has had to make adjustments to their opening times. They have had to close their premises because of the actions of a small number of people who ride around the area on e-scooters and bikes, which puts people off shopping there. That is only one impact, but that impact on our high street is something that we have not discussed today. People are put off shopping.”
“I thank those who tabled the motion and those who tabled the amendment, because it is a relevant debate on a prevalent issue. I will put that in a little bit of context. <BR /> <BR />A number of weeks ago, I was in Lisburn Square in Lisburn, which is a beautiful, pedestrianised precinct. It is a great shopping area, which partners Bow Street Mall: the finest that Lagan Valley has to offer. In that area during the daytime, there were a number of young people on large bikes. They were not on e-scooters or scramblers, but they were doing exactly the thing that we are talking about today. They were not riding or using them in the manner that most young people and bike users do. They were using them in a way that was deliberately provocative and dangerous not just to other users but, sadly, to themselves.”
“— he would know that it is not about creating AD plants; it is about dealing with our slurry and food waste.”
“If the Member had listened to the motion —”
“I am not one to stick up for the Agriculture Minister, but you are evidently not listening. He has said numerous times that it is not about stock reduction. We are talking about securing herd numbers here. If you had listened to the motion, you would also know that it is not about land-grabbing; a fact that has to be central to this. There is no point in making stuff up just for a TikTok.”
“The Member makes an excellent point, and I will not argue with it. However, this is unique in that around 85 AD plants are already operating. Therefore, we have history and evidence from which to learn regarding what, perhaps, went wrong and how we might improve it. It is not a blank canvas.”
“Does the Member accept that that already happening? An element of biomethane is already being injected into our grid, so it is tried and tested — it works — and, through R&D, the price will come down.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I will not argue with anything that the Member has said, because a small element in the Department for the Economy's energy division is working on a biomethane strategy. Does the Member recognise, however, the value of the circular economy here and the weight of the role that it plays when our farmers are under immense pressure to deal with the phosphorous and ammonia surplus? Does he recognise that this is really a good story for Northern Ireland, if we can get it right?”
“Just on that, does the Member recognise the fact that what has happened out of this is that a lot of land has come back into the animal feed space? There was a fear that it would all be grass-fed, but it is not. We are looking at food and manure wastes, and the knock-on effect is that we can reclaim a lot of that land for producing food.”
“This is a real chance to rebuild that and ensure, as we should as legislators, that our rural communities have that voice and that farmers are central to any development. I commend the motion to the House.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right. In fact, the birthplace in the Assembly was around 2021 with Minister Poots as Minister of Agriculture, through the sustainable use of livestock slurry (SULS) programme. It was probably the genesis of the biomethane programme. However, we need to learn from what has already happened and improve, then use and accelerate that research and development to ensure that we extract every benefit of everything that is within that circular economy. <BR /> <BR />It is really important, given the topics of debate over the weekend. I listened to my colleague from Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Diana Armstrong, on the radio about the shrinking rural economy.”
“<BR /> <BR />The choice is pretty simple: do we stay as we are, exposed to global and political volatility and reactive and dependent, or do we take a step forward to something that is more resilient and indigenous? Even if biomethane were to deliver part of the answer — 10%, 15% or 20% — it would deliver far more than energy; it would help the environment, support farming and strengthen rural economies. <BR /> <BR />As I have said, it is not a silver bullet, but it is a tool. If we use it properly, it could make a real difference. We can keep reacting to the world around us, or we can start shaping our own. This is our chance to do it. I urge Members around the Chamber to support the motion. Let us not shrink from it or talk it down.”
“There would be real day-to-day benefits, including less pressure on slurry storage, less risk of pollution and less reliance on trying to catch that one perfect day to spread the stuff. As we have seen this year with our incredibly wet winter, being too wet or too dry is not just frustrating; it adds significant stress. <BR /> <BR />We need to do it right. There needs to be strong regulation, clear rules and proper oversight, and support that is stable and sensible. It cannot repeat past mistakes; it has to build trust, and it has to be joined up. Energy, agriculture and environment have to work together, because that is the reality of the problem that we face.”
“Research suggests that we could significantly offset and potentially match current gas demand. We could deliver around 3·5 terawatt-hours of energy, which is a major share of what industry and businesses use. That is not small or insignificant; it is meaningful. <BR /> <BR />What matters most is that that connects energy and food. If farming is not viable, we lose food security; if nutrients are not managed, we lose farming; and, if energy is not stable, everything becomes harder. It is one system, and there is a real opportunity for rural communities. It is not about outside companies coming in. It works best when it is local, by which I mean farmer-led cooperative models that would keep the value where it is created and give farmers another option, rather than adding another burden.”
“Beyond that, the policy direction must be clear: this is about waste, slurry, manure and food waste. It is not about growing crops for profit at the expense of food production. If we get that bit wrong, we will create a new problem instead of solving the one that we have. <BR /> <BR />As we know well at the moment, Northern Ireland is exposed when it comes to energy. We rely on imports and a single interconnector, and we rely heavily on heating oil. When prices spike globally, we feel it immediately. There is no buffer. Farmers feel it three times over: in the price of fuel, the price of fertiliser and the price of feed. Biomethane does not solve all three, but it helps because it is indigenous — it is produced here. It keeps value in our economy, including, crucially, our rural economy, which really matters. The potential is real.”
“None of those pressures is easy. They are real, everyday pressures for our farmers. Anybody working in that sector will understand that our farmers are under significant pressure. The biggest issue that we have to deal with is not energy; it is how we deal with food waste. Anaerobic digestion gives us a way to process it, stabilise it, reduce emissions and, critically, move nutrients to where they are needed. That is not theory; it is practical, and it is working today. <BR /> <BR />Let me be really clear, because people, including farmers in particular, are rightly concerned: this cannot become a land grab, and we will not let it. Around a third of our land is farmed under conacre, which involves short-term land agreements. That alone puts a natural limit on large-scale crop growing.”
“We are dealing with a phosphorus surplus running into the thousands of tons, and a significant number of farms are operating at or above the 170 kg nitrogen limit. Farmers are being squeezed. They are being threatened with reductions in stock and are being asked to find more land, which simply does not exist. Our exports are coming under significant pressure.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am sure that many hear and see the seemingly trendy strapline of "Drill, baby, drill", but those who chant that mantra need to accept that drilling will not manage our waste, reduce our nutrient pressures or protect our farmers. If we are serious about resilience, we need solutions that do all three. To do that, we need to be honest, clear and accurate. <BR /> <BR />Let us think about the scale of what we are dealing with. We have in the region of 1·6 million to 1·8 million cows or cattle, around 1·8 million sheep, around 26 million chickens and poultry and around 1·6 million pigs, but we have only around 1 million hectares of agricultural land. That adds up to some pressures.”
“Farming does not sit in isolation, and we should not pretend that it does. <BR /> <BR />I cannot think of a better example of a workable circular economy. Look at what we already have. Every year, we produce around 10 million tons of slurry, poultry litter and food waste. For years, we have viewed and treated that as a problem — something to manage and limit — but, if we flip it, it is a resource that can produce biomethane, which is a gas that we can put straight into the network that we already have. That bit matters. We have already invested over £1 billion in that network. It is there; it works; and it can take renewable gas without people needing to change boilers or even lift a finger. That puts us ahead of the rest of these islands.”
“That is the reality, but here is the thing: at the exact moment that energy security is becoming one of the biggest global issues, Northern Ireland is, in fact, sitting on an opportunity. It is not imported, and it is not theoretical; it is right here. <BR /> <BR />I will be clear from the start. I am not suggesting in any sense that anaerobic digestion (AD) is a silver bullet. It will not fix everything, but it will be part of our solution if we treat it like a tool. Like a penknife, if used carefully and properly, it can do a lot of good. Used badly, it can cause harm. Used well, it can genuinely help to transform Northern Ireland, because this is not just about energy. It is about how everything connects: food security, energy security and environmental protection.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We may have set a world record with the length of the motion. That is not by luck but by design, because this is a really important topic that we must grasp. It is an opportunity for Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is tied up. It is being held up not in some abstract way but in a way that people feel every day. They feel it in their heating bills, on their farms, particularly, and in the pressure on our shared environment. For too long, Northern Ireland has been exposed. It has been exposed to global energy shocks, to supply chain disruption and to decisions made far beyond this place that we cannot interfere with. We have got used to being price takers.”
“I thank the Minister for this important statement. It has not been a great year for AFBI. We have had the whistle-blowing allegations, the data breach and, now, the HSE GB report. I commend the Minister for his candour and for taking responsibility for the matter, because the buck does indeed stop with you, Minister. How can you restore confidence in AFBI and, particularly, transparency? I know that I speak for Committee members in saying that we want to play our part in holding your feet to the fire to ensure that AFBI is what it should be.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member referenced the absolute need for the export market, particularly for our beef and lamb meat products, which make up about 80% of what is produced here. Most of that goes to supermarkets, which demand that the stamp on the product states that it is environmentally ethically sourced, which puts the burden on producers.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Let us not beat about the bush. You are removing the ambition by asking the Minister to remove — illegally, by the way — something that is in statute. It would have been better if you had seen sense and talked sense by revising the figures. That is common sense. Your party prides itself on talking about common sense. You need to deliver motions that have common sense at their core.”
“I remind the Member that the climate Act was brought forward by Edwin Poots. You and I were here, and we all voted for it. We may have a difference of opinion when it comes to our ambition and where we see the climate in respect of the economy and the environment, but, for us, it is about balance. Both things are achievable, and prosperity in that regard is absolutely achievable. I hope that the DUP will join us in that vein and see the linkage between the two. We need to move forward with ambition, realism and leadership, and that means rejecting the false choice at the heart of the motion. We should instead commit to an approach that delivers for both the environment and the economy.”
“No, you have already come in. <BR /> <BR />Does the Member want to make an intervention?”
“I can assure you that, if any of us are here in 2027 — if we are lucky enough to be elected — we will ensure that the scrutiny that is applied to the next draft climate plan will result in a different figure from what the last one got. However, let us ensure that it is proportionate and deliverable. Let us not pretend that the problem is the ambition itself. The problem is the absence of a coherent plan that works between Departments to actually deliver. <BR /> <BR />The motion rightly identifies some of the symptoms, but it misdiagnoses the cause and, in doing so, makes it impossible for us to support it. A simple change to the wording would have made it credible and deliverable. <BR /> <BR />Does the Member want to come in?”
“Thank you very much. <BR /> <BR />Had the motion said, "We will revise the targets", which is the party position of the Ulster Unionists, because the targets need to be revised, we would. However, withdrawal of the ambition means that we will fail to hit the mark at all. There is nothing wrong with having ambition, but we need to be absolutely honest in the Chamber: we will probably miss the targets. We have to be honest with the public. However, if we remove the ambition completely, we will miss the targets by a country mile. We need to stop blaming Joe Public, the farmer and the agrisector, and we need to work collectively in our Departments to ensure that we are facing in the same direction. <BR /> <BR />Let us scrutinise climate policy.”
“My party will propose a motion to the House next week on that subject, and I hope that Members will get behind it, because it tackles the problems that we face: food security, energy security and our environmental credentials in this country. That is being solution-focused. We see it in the absence of meaningful progress on afforestation — we will miss that target — in the stagnation of waste management reform and in the slow pace of change in transport, especially when it comes to electric vehicles and active travel. <BR /> <BR />I will let the Member come in.”
“It will be because of the failure of leadership and coordination at the heart of government and, particularly, because of the lack of interdepartmental working. We have had five years out of the past 10 years without ministerial leadership; five years without strategic direction; and five years without setting a clear and collective ambition for Northern Ireland, its environment and its economy. <BR /> <BR />That vacuum has consequences. We see it in the lack of preparedness in Departments. We see it in the failure to support renewable energy, whether it is onshore or offshore, and, in particular, in anaerobic digestion.”
“Not at this point. <BR /> <BR />The reality is this: our environment and our economy are not in competition. They are inextricably linked. The agri-food sector — one of the cornerstones of our economy — depends entirely on a stable climate, healthy soils and sustainable water systems. Our ability to attract investment depends increasingly on credibility in the transition to net zero. Our energy security, food security and long-term prosperity hinge on getting the right balance. <BR /> <BR />The Ulster Unionist Party is clear that we do not accept that it is a binary choice. We say that we must do both and must do better, but we have to be honest about where the failures lie. If we miss the targets by 2027 — I suggest that we will — it will not be because of our farmers, builders or businesses; it will be because we were not here.”
“It suggests that we must choose between environmental ambition and economic progress and between climate responsibility and delivering for our citizens. That is not only misleading but counterproductive”
“There is no doubt that the motion contains elements that are worthy of discussion. It raises legitimate concerns about infrastructure delivery, particularly the A5; pressures on ratepayers; and the real frustration that communities feel when long-promised projects are delayed. It also, entirely reasonably, asks that policies be properly costed and poses a question about where their impacts are understood and whether Departments are working efficiently. Those points in the motion deserve proper debate in the Chamber, but, unfortunately, due to the nature of the motion, each of us has only a few minutes in which to speak. However, the motion falls fundamentally short in its framing, unfortunately. At its core, it presents a false choice.”
“This failure was not deliberate, but if we do not face up to the challenges and move beyond silo working to genuine shared ownership, we cannot escape a difficult truth: our systems will have been proven not to be fit for purpose. <BR /> <BR />We need a new culture. In 1998, the Good Friday Agreement outlined a culture, and we need to get back to its spirit, one that leaves no one behind, is honest with families, does not overpromise but absolutely does not under-deliver. Families should not have to come back here and fight weekly, monthly and yearly to get the systems that they are entitled to and that would support them and their children. Those things should already be there. Delivery must be reliable, not exceptional and certainly not unexpected. I ask Members to support our amendment No 2.”
“We see it in the gaps in the local growth fund, which risk, once again, leaving some of our most vulnerable young people behind, yet some suggest that that is simply someone else's problem. <BR /> <BR />We must ask ourselves what our role is in all of that. Our role is to ensure that legislation, including the Children's Services Co-operation Act that we passed previously, is not simply admired as a principle but effectively used in practice. Right now, that Act is not being utilised to its full capacity to drive the cross-departmental working that it was designed to secure. That is not simply a rebuke to the Education Minister or the Health Minister; it goes for every one of us in the Chamber.”
“As someone outlined to me yesterday, it is a little bit like doing your knitting on a needle and watching helplessly as the wool falls off that needle. <BR /> <BR />We see that pattern repeated elsewhere. We see it in the ongoing failure to design and agree meaningful post-19 provision. Young people and their families face a cliff edge, not simply because we lack policy but because we lack clear, joined-up delivery and distinct ownership. I am glad that the Health Minister has put that front and centre at the door of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister for their intervention. <BR /> <BR />We also see it when children with special educational needs do not receive their school placements at the same time as their peers. That delay is not administrative; it has a deeply felt human impact.”
“I will not. Sorry, I do not have enough time. <BR /> <BR />The recent crisis around summer schemes in special schools is not a one-off failure. It is a clear example of what the Autism Reviewer describes as a "recurring system pattern", where delivery depends on coordinated action but that coordinated action is not secured in advance. The need for nursing support had been assessed. That has been covered. The value of those schemes is absolutely known. What was missing was the alignment. However, there remain questions to be answered. What has changed since the assessment of previous schemes, and is the same support required for specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS)? That "missing middle", as the Autism Reviewer puts it, is the space between policy intent and lived experience. That, sadly, is where things fall apart.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. At times, though, I regret to say, not exclusively, the debate has focused not simply on what regrettably happened last week but on what it revealed about how our system operates and when Departments should work together but fail, sometimes, to hit that mark. Last week was an example of such a moment. Saying this will not get me any clicks, likes or shares, but no one in the Chamber deliberately sets out to fail. No Minister, official or service leader wakes up intending to disappoint families, yet disappointment is exactly what our families experience time and again, because, sadly, our culture and systems too often make that outcome predictable.”
“— politically. Will you return to the children in need? Thank you.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. You are two minutes and 30 seconds into your speech and have not once mentioned the kids with special educational needs. All you have done is attack —”
“However, the reflection of it must be felt by members of our deaf community regardless of their age or where they are in our community.”
“<BR /> <BR />Overall, we believe that the amendments strengthen the Bill, particularly in relation to consultation, accountability and oversight. They place a greater emphasis on meaningful engagement, ensure that a broader range of voices is heard and enhance the role of the Assembly in scrutinising how the Bill is implemented. Ultimately, however, the test will be in the delivery, ensuring that what is set out in the Bill translates into real, practical support for those who need it and that the commitments made here are followed through in practice. <BR /> <BR />On a final note, I will add that the Bill is a really good piece of legislation. I have been through it and communicated with my party colleague Andy Allen, who is on the Communities Committee. He has applied rigorous scrutiny to it and has been all over the detail.”
“The principle is sound. The key will be consistent and meaningful delivery, which we will be mindful of keeping an eye on. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 9 to 12 strengthen Assembly oversight by moving key powers to the affirmative procedure. That is a positive step. It is welcome and ensures that regulations are properly scrutinised and approved. <BR /> <BR />The changes to clause 9, requiring reports to be laid before the Assembly and reducing the reporting period from five years to three years, are also welcome and should help us to refine, review and improve. They have the potential to improve transparency, help to maintain momentum and, hopefully, garner the confidence of the deaf community. Similarly, the amendment to clause 10, applying the affirmative procedure, is an important safeguard.”
“That said, numbers alone are not enough; what matters is that the engagement reflects the diversity of experience in the deaf community. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 17 provides further clarity about those who are "representative or cognisant of" those views. We believe that flexibility to be helpful, but it will need to be applied carefully to ensure that it works as intended in practice. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 18 is a significant addition. It places a clear requirement on the Department regarding how engagement should be carried out. In particular, it recognises the need to reflect both British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. That reflects the reality here and strengthens the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 19, 20 and 21 continue that theme, reinforcing the need for consultation to reflect different parts of the deaf community.”
“I rise to speak on the group 2 amendments on consultation, conferral of functions, reporting and Assembly control. These amendments are really about how the Bill will operate in practice, how decisions will be made, how people will be engaged with and, crucially, how the Assembly will hold that process to account. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 6, 7 and 8 will strengthen consultation requirements, and that has to be welcomed. However, engagement must be meaningful and ongoing, not just a tick-box exercise. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 13 to 16, which move from consultation with one "person or group" to two or more, are sensible. They reduce the risk of engagement being too narrow or dominated by a single perspective.”
“On balance, therefore, we are content to support Amendment No 4, but we are clear that responsibility will rest with the Department to ensure that adequate resources are available so that implementation will not adversely impact on delivery or access, nor will it divert focus from priority groups or create unintended barriers. <BR /> <BR />As detailed already, amendment No 5 is simply consequential: it follows from amendment No 4 and ensures that the Bill remains technically correct, so we are content to support it. <BR /> <BR />I will address group 2 in turn.”
“Amendment No 4 recognises that there is a cohort of adults who are not currently provided for in the Bill. Through age, illness or trauma, people can find themselves having to relearn how they communicate, often at a difficult point in their life. Some provision is available, which is welcome, but access is not always consistent or clear. There is a strong case that that group should not be left without structured support. Amendment No 4 provides flexibility and includes the potential for fees to be charged but with the safeguard that costs cannot be exceeded.”
“We are certainly listening to that part of the debate today. We are concerned that that will create uncertainty about who the Bill is intended to cover and potentially risks diluting its focus. We consider that the use of the phrase "who normally use" is a more grounded and workable definition for the purpose of this legislation. Those who lose their hearing later in life could still be captured in the original definition, should they come to use sign language in their day-to-day lives. <BR /> <BR />That said, amendment No 22 is trying to address a valid point, particularly for those who lose their hearing later in life. That is why we see greater merit in amendment No 4, which seeks to address that gap in a more targeted and practical way.”
“Amendment No 2, which updates the wording in clause 2 from "deaf children" to "young people who are deaf", may seem minor, but it matters. The language that is used in the Bill will shape how it is delivered in practice. Ultimately, though, the test will be whether it delivers real and meaningful outcomes. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 22 proposes to shift the definition in clause 11 from those "who normally use" British Sign Language or Irish Sign Language to those "who will benefit from using" them. Again, that is a significant change. While we understand the intention behind it, the wording "will benefit from using" is much broader and less clearly defined. It moves away from those who rely on sign language in their day-to-day lives and potentially opens the scope of the Bill to a potentially much wider group.”
“<BR /> <BR />I turn to the group 1 amendments, "Sign language classes and definition of 'deaf community'". We broadly welcome the intent behind the amendments in group 1. At its core, the Bill is about access to sign language and getting that right early, which makes all the difference. Amendment No 1 puts beyond doubt that classes are to be provided free of charge. That reflects what was always understood, which is that cost should not be a barrier, particularly for children, young people and their families. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3, which extends the definition of young people to persons under 25, is also sensible. It reflects the reality that support does not stop at 18 and that the transition into adulthood is a key period.”