Jonathan Buckley
Upper Bann · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Sinn Féin's representatives in the European Parliament voted against proposals aimed at strengthening the management of illegal immigration and facilitating the return of failed asylum applicants — those who entered countries illegally — to designated return hubs outside the European Union.”
“Last year, Sinn Féin, alongside the open-border brigade of the Alliance Party and the SDLP, voted against my motion in the Assembly that called for action to address concerns about illegal and uncontrolled immigration.”
“People want an immigration system that is controlled, credible and properly enforced whilst ensuring that the genuine, heartfelt, lived experience and concerns of local citizens are at the heart of the debate. That is not an unreasonable position to take.”
“I highlight yet another example of a political party claiming to represent the views of people across the island of Ireland yet taking a position that is fundamentally out of step with the concerns being expressed by a vast number of people across Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom, and t…”
“The Minister is aware and is, in fact, on record as having suggested that organised drug crime is happening in prisons. I have previously raised that matter in the Assembly.”
“Minister, I am sure that you agree that we cannot continue to leave residents in limbo. There has to be some progress on the matter. A number of unfinished developments have been lying stagnant for a long time, but the number is so small that it would not require that great an amount of money to ensure adequate facilities for residents, e…”
The complete record
Every one of 2,272 lines we hold for Jonathan Buckley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 46.
“They covered large sections of our economy, yet, whilst we in the House recognise that the Windsor framework presents difficulties to some of our businesses, whether they are small, medium or, in some cases, large, in essence, we voted against the ability to take decisions to benefit those businesses. That is a great shame on the Members who, at the behest of the European Union, sent those laws there. <BR /> <BR />The Road Haulage Association captured some of the issues facing the haulage sector well. Members may want to go on the record to rubbish what M&S said, but the Road Haulage Association identified that, as long as it remains the position that all goods are classified as "at risk" unless it can be proved otherwise, large swathes of checks are placed on those businesses and that trade in particular.”
“When we talk about the democratic deficit, Members across the Floor talk keenly about the need for an Assembly to debate the issues. However, pre-Christmas 2024, after a six-hour debate on articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework, the Assembly sent over 300 areas of law, controlling large swathes of our economy, back to Europe. It therefore could have no democratic say on the laws that affect our people, our businesses and our consumers. The laws covered everything from agriculture, the environment and electricity to state aid, VAT and duties, goods and customs.”
“<BR /> <BR />We talk about the democratic deficit, and, at the start of his contribution, Mr Gaston talked about how the motion contains the wrongs of the Windsor framework. I have always held that position, and I always will. The Windsor framework's root problem, as with the agreements subsequent to it, is that EU law still applies. Whilst EU law still applies in Northern Ireland, we will still have those major issues affecting large swathes of our economy.”
“We have already heard about M&S and the challenges that it faces. <BR /> <BR />Let us look at some of the evidence in the independent report. Products are being delisted locally because GB businesses, particularly micro and small businesses, are choosing not to supply Northern Ireland. Supermarkets feel that the Government's push for 100% compliance with the Windsor framework is unnecessarily disrupting trade to Northern Ireland. That goes to the heart of the matter. The UK's insistence on 100% compliance is not being met with any form of goodwill from the European Union. It is being met with meek responses and disengagement from the very organisation that could unlock the solutions to a lot of the problems.”
“That is exactly the point that I am coming to. The Member for South Belfast also talked about good relations with the European Union. Members, be under no illusions about this: the EU has played a blinder. It hoodwinked the United Kingdom in the Brexit negotiations. Why do I say that? Let us look at Lord Murphy's review. We can point out its clear limitations, but one of the most startling aspects of his evidence to the Economy Committee just a couple of weeks prior to this debate was the fact that, despite him reaching out in good faith to the European Union, it would not even afford him the courtesy of a meeting. What does that say? Are the parties opposite so blinded by the needs and wants of the European Union that they close their eyes and cover their ears to the genuine concerns of the businesses that are represented in the motion?”
“<BR /> <BR />We had the SDLP talk about article 14 of the agreement, which would enable the EU to have direct conversations with business representatives and Northern Ireland stakeholders about the impact and —”
“I will indeed. As the Member who is winding up on the motion, I think that it is important that I capture the totality of the debate. Imagine being in such a wealthy position that you do not even know how many properties you own. I will give way to a Member of Sinn Féin if one of them wants to tell us that. No? I suspected that they did not. <BR /> <BR />We can look at the Alliance Party's contribution to the debate. We had the student union debater-in-chief, Mr Tennyson, telling us that it is our fault. He said, "You should have listened to us." Had we listened to them, we would have had the rigorous implementation of the very protocol that preceded the Windsor framework, which would have caused even more catastrophic difficulties for our businesses.”
“It is a bit rich for those champagne socialists to talk about cost-of-living strategies when it is now the richest party in these islands, with assets estimated to have a net value of over €8 million. When we talk about the cost-of-living crisis, as the Member mentioned —.”
“M&S is shot down because it is M&S. The RHA is shot down because it does not represent a wider section of those who are impacted. That is deeply disingenuous for the businesses that have felt the need to speak up on the impact that the arrangements are having on their respective industries. <BR /> <BR />Some parties have reiterated old ground. Sinn Féin talked about the need for a cost-of-living strategy. The Member for South Antrim and chairman of Sinn Féin, Mr Kearney, said that we should stop wasting time. He failed to say that his party has probably tabled more motions about Gaza than about the cost-of-living crisis since it came back to this place.”
“I say gently to Members, although we will always have robust conversation in the Chamber, that it is incumbent on us, as elected Members of the Assembly, to speak up when harm is caused. Often, what has happened in this place is that businesses that have been impacted by the Windsor framework and, indeed, other provisions from the Brexit process — from the withdrawal agreement right through — have felt that they needed to keep their head down rather than speak up on the issues that affect them, their business, their employees and the Northern Ireland consumer. Just at a time when some of them go on the record to talk about their concerns from a business perspective, they are shot down. Some Members shot down the FSB report, saying that the examples that it gave were not relevant and represented too small a proportion.”
“Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Who would have thought that a debate on challenging the harm posed by the Windsor framework would cause such a debate or lack of it in some instances? It is fair to say that a lot of political parties have been on a journey when it comes to the Windsor framework. I genuinely believe that, today, all parties are now in a position where they, perhaps to varying degrees, understand that harm is being caused to some aspects of business in Northern Ireland because of the Windsor framework's outputs. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland's economy is largely made up of small businesses, and that is largely on whom the major weight of trouble has fallen.”
“Invest NI is crucial to ensuring that our businesses reach their full potential right across the world. With that in mind, the Minister will be aware that, recently, Invest NI talked about the importance of the defence sector to the Northern Ireland economy, representing some 10,000 jobs and £2 billion in output. Does the Minister agree with that statement?”
“When addressing business and trade matters, the First Minister indicated that there were talks around the UK-US and the EU-US trade deals. The First Minister will be aware that President Trump issued significantly higher tariffs on EU exports than on UK exports. As First Minister for Northern Ireland, did you advocate the desire that Northern Ireland exports fall under UK tariff rates, which would mean a lower rate than that of the EU?”
“Then there are reforms to prevent immigration judges from putting European Convention on Human Rights laws above the rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom to control our borders and keep our people safe. Those are all common-sense measures, and it is high time that the Government —”
“We have only to look at the legal aid bill to see that it is costing the country a fortune to deport those who should not be here in the first place.”
“First, they ignore you, then they laugh at, sneer at and ridicule you, then they fight you, and then they claim your viewpoint as their own. That is what has been happening in the United Kingdom. <BR /> <BR />The measures that the Home Secretary has outlined are, I believe, common sense. They will not solve illegal immigration in its totality, but they will help. There are to be visa bans for countries that do not take back their citizens who have arrived on the UK's shores illegally: that is common sense. There are to be restrictions on the ability of those who arrive here illegally to claim benefits: that is common sense. There are to be restrictions on endless appeals by illegal immigrants against their removal: that is common sense.”
“Those are not my words but those of the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom as she announced the most significant changes to our asylum system in over a decade. That very point should be one of eternal shame to the Conservative Government who previously held power for 14 years and presided over such significant issues in our asylum system. Our communities know only too well the difficulties caused by illegal immigration. They have been talking about them for years. A year ago, a Labour politician would have attempted to lock people up for making a statement such as the one that the Home Secretary made. The fact remains that the political classes seem to be going through the stages of political grief.”
“At the outset, on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I convey our deepest sympathies to the families who lost loved ones just outside Dundalk on Saturday. The pain and grief that those families and school communities are facing at the moment must be unbearable.”
“It is important that the House is united. I will say this: we have the chance in the Chamber to do something great today. If amended, the motion will send a united, clear message that the scheme should not apply right across the United Kingdom. Every party, with the exception of Sinn Féin, has accepted the amendment. It will pass. Will Sinn Féin make it a full house and ensure that we speak as one voice in saying to the UK Government, "No to digital ID"? I await the vote.”
“What about the policy of one in, one out in controlling illegal immigration, only for them to return on the very next boat? It is a case of absolute gaslighting to the people who have serious concerns. <BR /> <BR />The Government tell us that digital ID will be the authoritative proof of identity and residency, containing our name, date of birth, nationality, residency status and even biometric data. That is not convenience: that is control. It is a step towards population-wide surveillance, and one that jeopardises privacy and trust in the use of private data. This Government have shown their record when it comes to storing personal data. There have been several cases of cyberattacks and the release of information pertaining to private citizens. <BR /> <BR />I do not trust this scheme: I never have, and I never will.”
“Digital ID introduced under the banner of reducing and curbing illegal immigration really is quite something. The cats and the dogs on the street know that there is not one chance that such a scheme would have an impact on those arriving daily on our shores, illegally and undocumented. <BR /> <BR />I could not be clearer: I would not trust this Labour Government to take my bin to the end of the lane, never mind to store my personal data under the banner of a digital ID. Let us look at their legacy when it comes to illegal immigration. Apparently, one of the most secure places on earth for citizens who are under supervision and under watch is where? Our prisons. Has anybody watched the chaos in the United Kingdom of prisoners, asylum seekers and those with sexual convictions being released?”
“In a moment. I do not think that I will have an extra minute, because I am winding up. <BR /> <BR />This motion, when amended, shows those of a British identity and those of an Irish identity working together to show Keir Starmer and the Labour Government that digital IDs will not stand in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales. We stand united in this place to send a clear message to the UK Government: no to digital IDs. That is quite an achievement. It may not have been the intention of the Members who tabled the motion, but, ultimately, it can and will be the conclusion. <BR /> <BR />Members, we have to remember the origins of digital ID. It is the same bucket of cold sick that Tony Blair tried to foist upon the people. It would have been a different excuse but the very same concept.”
“Let freedom ring; liberty for all. It truly is breathtaking and shows such a journey from some difficult and dark years. The second reason is that it is a genuine sign of cross-community working that ultimately leads to better results.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />This debate gives me much joy and much hope, for two reasons. First, if I were to close my eyes in the Chamber, I would almost think that every party had found its inner Paul Frew.”
“Given the ongoing delays in the upgrade of the Kinnegar waste water treatment plant, will the Minister's discussions with the Infrastructure Minister include aspects of the living with water programme and, indeed, how that programme will improve water quality? Is there a risk that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency will find that Kinnegar is non-compliant from 2027?”
“Does the Member agree that the Alliance approach is, "One rule for thee, a different for me"?”
“The most interesting part of Mr Carroll's point of order is that he did not utter one word of regret about the tweet that he issued and had not one word of sympathy for those who were killed. That is hypocrisy, Members. <BR /> <BR />The Minister of Education will still be the Minister of Education at the end of today's debate. He will get on with doing his job. He was put into office by members of this party, courtesy of those who voted for us at the election. He will serve all communities without fear or favour and ensure —.”
“<BR /> <BR />On 7 October 2023, Mr Carroll tweeted: "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", when babies were being burnt in ovens, children were being killed and women were being raped. I will give him the chance, if he wants it, to withdraw it right now. Will he withdraw it? There is silence. That, my friends, is the man who is being propped up by the parties opposite. They have no shame. <BR /> <BR />Mr Carroll, because you will not withdraw that comment, I cannot conclude anything other than that you are a rampant antisemite and that you hate Jews.”
“Alliance Members are interested in talking about other Ministers’ records, but, when their own Ministers’ records are put up in lights, they run for the hills. They are records of dismissal and of hiding behind the desk while their Departments are in absolute chaos. <BR /> <BR />The voters had their vote of no confidence in the SDLP. They are in opposition not out of choice but because the voters put them there. That is the truth. <BR /> <BR />Then, we have — come on now, Members — Comrade Carroll, the conductor in chief. He has the SDLP, Alliance and Sinn Féin all doing the 'Cha-Cha Slide' to a leftist agenda. I mean, I would expect it from Sinn Féin, but what a slide to the hard left by the Alliance Party. It is a shameful approach.”
“The Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) has demonstrated that it has absolutely no confidence in that man as Minister. <BR /> <BR />Then, there is the SDLP. Well, this will be brief. It will be brief, because voters issued their vote of no confidence in the SDLP at the last election.”
“Sorry, I will correct that: she is the leader of a party that will support the motion, a lady whose party believes that those who planted bombs and pulled triggers must be elevated to the same status as innocent victims. What utter shame. She is a Minister of Justice who believes that men should be housed in women's prisons. I mean, is that not a point of confidence? <BR /> <BR />Then, we have the Minister of Agriculture, Andrew Muir. Well, where do I start with this one? My goodness, his approach to agriculture is reminiscent of the man who thought that you could milk a cow by pulling its tail. This man —”
“<BR /> <BR />What about confidence in another Minister who signed the motion, namely the leader of the Alliance Party, Naomi Long?”
“Absolutely. When we come to a time when it is deemed that a Minister has breached the ministerial code — say, via a court ruling, rather than by a pan-nationalist kangaroo court — what will be the position of those parties? If we want to talk purely about confidence in Ministers, the Executive and indeed previous Executives, we had better do just that. What about confidence in our supposed "First Minister for all", a lady who said that there was no alternative to IRA violence? We are being subjected to lectures from none other than Declan Kearney and Pat Sheehan about the murder of defenceless, innocent children and babies when their own military wing took the life of many innocent babies and children in this country. Sorry, but there is a brave degree of self-denial from the Members opposite.”
“For the benefit of Mr Sheehan, every child and baby is innocent, no matter where they are in the world, and their killing is abhorrent and wrong. Is that clear enough, sir? <BR /> <BR />The motion is nothing short of the imposition of a view that is held by some people.”
“Today's pantomime confidence vote is nearing its final act, but, in case anybody has not been listening, let me issue a spoiler alert: the only resignation that there will be today is at the BBC for apparent breaches of impartiality. <BR /> <BR />I have stated continually in the House that everybody is entitled to a different perspective and position on the Middle East and the conflict there.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member recognise that, whilst there is hypersensitivity for anybody who serves across the United Kingdom, it is even more acute when it comes to Northern Ireland?”
“I thank the Member for giving way and for pointing to the example of the Education Minister stepping up to support veterans' families. Does she agree that, if the same approach was adopted across all Departments, our veterans would be in a better place?”
“— their service is always safeguarded and protected. We are so thankful for that service.”
“The first point that I will make to the Member is that they do so in service to this nation. The second point is that to brashly put it across that they may not face significant challenges is a denial of the reality that they continue to live in. Whether it is their families, as mentioned by Mr Frew, or their personal security, they continue to face significant challenges. I will just say this: let the motion be a clear example of what the Assembly can achieve when it works together, because we value our armed forces and understand the challenges that they face. We will ensure that —”
“I will, if I have time. I want to make this point. <BR /> <BR />Among veterans aged 25 to 44, the rate of suicide remains higher than that of the general population. That truth cannot be ignored. We owe it to them to ensure that our health services and, indeed, every Department are responsible, compassionate and proactive. That is why the appointment of a departmental armed forces liaison officer, which the motion calls for, would be a vital step in ensuring accountability in this area.”
“but I can assure you of his youthful and energetic approach to ensuring that this debate happened. It really was of personal note, and I thank him for it. He makes a strong point. He went on to outline the significant contribution that the UK defence sector makes across the United Kingdom: it provides 440,000 jobs. He highlighted how former service personnel, with their characteristic discipline and highly trained adaptability, can be transformational to industry in Northern Ireland. However, I want to focus on a particular challenge, and we must be honest about the challenges that many veterans continue to experience.”
“I thank the Member. In making my earlier point, I omitted to thank him for his work. He stretches the definition of "young" at times”
“They are a moral obligation: the nation's promise to those who have already given this society so much. Through 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), the DUP fought to ensure that the covenant would be properly enshrined in law here, alongside the appointment of a Veterans Commissioner. The legal duty now applies to a range of public bodies across Northern Ireland, but the real litmus test is how we give life to those commitments. Implementation must be robust, not rhetorical.”
“<BR /> <BR />The men and women of our armed services embody courage, professionalism and self-sacrifice. They stand ready, often at great personal cost, to protect our freedoms and uphold peace not just abroad but, indeed, as has been mentioned, here at home. It is only right that the Assembly demonstrates our commitment to them in return. <BR /> <BR />The armed forces covenant is built on two simple principles. The first is "no disadvantage". No serving or former member of the armed forces nor their families should be at a disadvantage when accessing public services such as healthcare, housing or education. The second is "special consideration", particularly for those who have been injured or bereaved in the line of duty. Those principles are not just throwaway remarks or words on paper.”
“I am proud to support the motion. It has been a particularly immense privilege to work, from the very genesis of the motion, alongside the UUP's Andy Allen and the TUV's Timothy Gaston to ensure that it could be presented jointly. Our community has long called for such joint leadership, and I hope that that continues. <BR /> <BR />I pay tribute to the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland, David Johnstone, and his team. They have coordinated and worked with us to ensure that we presented a motion that could get broad consensus in the House to reflect accurately our deep appreciation of all the men and women who have served our country in our armed forces. To Members of the House, present and past, who have served, we thank you sincerely for that service.”
“Finally, with the review that she initiated, is she aware at this stage whether there have been similar incidents with families not having been notified?”
“The double murder of my constituents Michael and Marjorie Cawdery was an appalling act of human evil that was caused as a result of catastrophic failures. We think of that family today. I remember visiting neighbours in that quiet residential area of Portadown following their murder, and the sense of shock and fear was palpable. Minister, for many in that community to learn through a television report that the couple's killer, Thomas McEntee, had been on pre-release on 13 occasions since February, four of which were unsupervised, is a damning failure on the part of the Department of Justice. Were any restrictions placed on where Mr McEntee could or could not go, particularly in the Portadown area? Does the Minister think that it is acceptable that a killer such as Mr McEntee was unaccompanied on four occasions?”
“Minister, your attempt to blame your predecessors is fooling absolutely no one. The Ulster Farmers' Union passed a motion of no confidence in DAERA, which is a Department led by you, not your predecessors. Minister, farmers are a patient and hard-working section of our society. They have concluded that you do not cut the mustard. Is that not a source of complete and utter embarrassment for the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland?”
“The public can see through this choreographed witch-hunt, orchestrated by the antisemite-in-chief, Gerry Carroll, propped up by those on the extreme left in the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. The Minister has already said that his departmental officials knew about the trip. Will the Minister indicate whether departmental officials suggested to him at any time that he was in breach of any rules relating to his ministerial duties?”
“Minister, dental practitioners and social workers have been in contact with me to raise concerns that a number of asylum-seeker patients, who, in their professional opinion, are most certainly adults, are presenting as children when accessing dental treatment in Northern Ireland. They feel unable to voice their concerns for fear of being branded far right or racist. I therefore ask the Minister whether he acknowledges that, if that is happening, it is of huge concern and presents wider child-safeguarding issues for social services and their use? Moreover, will the Minister commit to looking into the issue, which warrants serious investigation, and come back to the House on it?”