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 13 of 46.
“He was assassinated because our young people were prepared to listen and to take courage in standing up for truth with conviction. <BR /> <BR />More importantly than any of that, Charlie embraced his Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and he proclaimed the gospel proudly. In his own words, he said:”
“First and foremost, our hearts go out to his wife, Erika, and their children. Today, we hear the courageous battle cry of a young widow. At its core, this is a human loss, with a family broken and torn apart in the most cruel and inhumane way imaginable. No words can ease their pain, nor will they ever, but today, we stand with them in their grief and their loss. <BR /> <BR />Charlie was a beaming light in a world that is consumed by darkness. A man with unwavering conviction, he stood boldly for the truth, guided by courage and passion. His voice resonated with a generation, especially with young people who saw in him a rare form of leadership, unafraid, unfiltered and unshaken. Charlie Kirk was not assassinated because of the words that he spoke.”
“Last week, the world was shaken by a senseless, barbaric and tragic act: the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”
“<BR /> <BR />The motion makes no reference to serial polluters such as NI Water, which has dumped millions of tons of raw sewage into our waterways and into Lough Neagh — not a single mention. Its default position is to go after the farmer. Perhaps the House could collectively agree on a motion that would take on NI Water and those who have polluted with raw sewage for years, rather than default to blaming the farmer every time. <BR /> <BR />The farmer is watching. Which way will Sinn Féin vote today?”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. There absolutely are farmers of all creeds, but, right now, Sinn Féin has failed on the third occasion to clarify whether it will support a motion that expresses regret at the position that it expressed in the House months previously. That is a gross betrayal of the beef farmer, the pig farmer, the dairy farmer, the hill farmer and the sheep farmer. Sinn Féin is talking out of both sides of its mouth in today's debate. That is where my criticism lies: if those Members are not prepared to stand up and speak out for farmers, rather than speaking out of both sides of their mouth, in whom can those farmers place their trust? The body politic is damaged daily by politicians who are prepared to tell voters one thing and do the exact opposite.”
“In a minute. The Sinn Féin Member has asked me to take an intervention, and I will. I hope that she will clarify whether she will support the motion.”
“If they do, they will grossly betray farmers of all creeds and all backgrounds in Northern Ireland — nationalist farmers, republican farmers, unionist farmers, other farmers, whatever type of farmer. If you support the motion, you fundamentally —”
“That is exactly what you said when farmers asked us to speak up for them. If you support the motion, you will have done a 180-degree U-turn on the position that you outlined in the House. If that is the case, it is a huge betrayal of the farming community. Is it any wonder that trust in politicians is at an all-time low when they come to the House one month and say that they will stand up and protect farmers and, the next month or months after, say weasel words and hedge their bets? <BR /> <BR />For the second time, I ask it: will Sinn Féin support this motion? There are eight Sinn Féin Members in the Chamber right now: will they support the motion?”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr McAleer, a Member for Mid Ulster, stated in this place that Mr Muir's proposals were "not fit for purpose". Quote: "Muir must start again". The Member for South Down, Mrs Mason, said:”
“I will give way in a moment, Mr O'Toole. Mr Tennyson and I rarely agree in the Chamber, but there was a point in his speech when he was absolutely fundamentally correct. He said that the House passed a motion calling for the NAP proposals to be withdrawn. Does Sinn Féin support today's motion, which expresses regret about that motion? Is anybody prepared to answer? I have not heard it from Sinn Féin. Make no mistake: if Sinn Féin supports today's motion, it will have deliberately and callously put the dagger in the back of the farmers who, it said on a previous occasion in the Chamber, were under huge threat from the Minister's proposal. The Alliance Party may not credit me with many things, but they can credit me with one thing: I will be consistent on the matter.”
“In a moment. <BR /> <BR />Words matter. Absolutely, words matter. That is why I cannot support the motion, particularly when it”
“As I mentioned earlier, the issue of blue-green algae is not new. It is happening around the world. My colleague Miss McIlveen set out the case for why my party believes that the Minister's proposed nutrients action programme is an existential threat to Northern Ireland's agriculture. It risks jobs, cuts livestock, penalises farmers and destroys Northern Ireland's last remaining indigenous industry.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. We talk about irrigation and the need to oxidate the water to stop the blue-green algae. Does he agree that the lack of dredging of our rivers has hugely impacted on the flow of water in and out of Lough Neagh, affecting the river that he mentioned?”
“I thank the Member for giving way and for the important work that she has done on the issue. Does the Member agree that, if the motion were to pass today, it would directly contradict a cross-party, cross-community vote in the House, which showed parties standing up for farmers?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that blue-green algae is not a recent phenomenon? It has been affecting freshwater lakes for well over a century. Does the Member accept that the NAP policy that the Minister brought forward was scrapped because it disproportionately put the blame at the farmer's door instead of bringing people together to target the likes of those who pump waste water into the lough?”
“As a north Armagh politician, I know that the Minister will be acutely aware of the huge contribution that farmers make to the Northern Ireland economy. He will also be aware of the unprecedented attacks that farming has faced both from some in this Chamber and from the Chancellor in her announcements on the family farm tax, which will disproportionately cripple Northern Ireland farmers. Did the Minister raise that issue of concern with the Chancellor? Is he confident that she at least alluded to some mitigating factors that will help farmers to deal with that substantial threat?”
“The Minister's statement references the issues facing Lough Neagh. He recently announced a round of funding to explore potential products and solutions to treat and reduce blue-green algae. I am aware that five companies received such funding. I know of at least one company — I am sure there are others — that was denied funding in that particular round. If we are to approach this conversation with a genuinely open mind, will the Minister explain why that was the case and will he commit to engaging his officials to ensure that all those companies with potential solutions have the ability to present to the Department so that we can best place targeted action if the solutions exist?”
“Indeed, the European Convention on Human Rights is being interpreted as such, because we have a growth of the barrister politician class, who will not stand for a single vote but will adjudicate upon laws in this land that defeat the purpose of having strong, controlled borders. <BR /> <BR />It is time that parties got real on the issue, stood up for all our citizens and ensured that we have safe and secure borders and a place that is prosperous for all. Be assured that the Democratic Unionist Party will continue to do just that.”
“Now, we have the issue about the law that permits people to come to this country and stay without deportation. Those who have come to this country and have, in some cases, been part of horrendous acts — sexual acts — of violence against women and children. What was once said in a Charles Dickens novel? It was:”
“I hear Sinn Féin talking about the national conversation that is happening across the community. There is a conversation happening. Whether it is on the streets of Newry, Belfast, Portadown or elsewhere, people are coming together to call out what has been a dereliction of duty from nationalist parties such as Sinn Féin and the SDLP and others such as Alliance who have failed to deal with the issue and stand up for constituents because they have no lived experience of it.”
“I hear you shouting "Rubbish", but it is not. The facts are clear.”
“Those parties are against taking action on illegal immigration, against taking action on the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), against taking action on illegal immigrant hotels and against taking action on the abuse of public services by those who enter the country illegally, placing pressure on our public services, housing, health service and law and order.”
“The hapless state of the UK and Ireland surrounding uncontrolled and illegal immigration has continued to be exposed. Over 50,000 people entered the UK illegally on small boats in the past year, with 1,000 arriving on Saturday alone, costing the UK taxpayer billions of pounds annually. However, it is not just the UK Government that have been hapless in their approach to the subject: there are parties in the Chamber that are part of that gathering. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party all voted against the DUP's motion calling for the UK Government to take strong action on illegal immigration.”
“— face continual barriers, increased costs and a lack of consumer choice.”
“Whilst some across the House may not agree with me constitutionally or understand why I feel, as a unionist, that the agreement is so wrong, you will agree with me in the future when it shows that businesses and consumers from nationalist, unionist and other backgrounds alike—”
“No, not at this point. <BR /> <BR />There is an irony that a recommendation from that review requires cross-community support, but the very arrangements that were being reviewed, which have no support from unionism in this place, are not subject to cross-community support. <BR /> <BR />Folks, we have to be real. We have to help businesses, but, whilst people in the Chamber want to continue to bury their heads in the sand and ensure that businesses cannot get to the issues of barriers to trade and divergence of trade and consumers continue to face the repercussions of increased costs, we are fighting a losing battle.”
“If the Assembly approached the debate collectively, with the understanding that the Windsor framework is creating barriers for consumers and businesses, we could get real about dealing with the issue. I have no doubt that the Europeans would listen if some of their lapdogs on the Benches opposite came to that realisation and spoke up for Northern Ireland businesses. <BR /> <BR />We then had the Murphy review, which has been touched on. The Murphy review identified some of the core issues, but it fundamentally failed to bring forward proposals that would deal with the issue substantially. Why was that? There was an in-built veto to that very review that said that, unless a recommendation was likely to gain cross-community support, it could not prosper. Where is the irony in that?”
“It states that 58% of businesses that were surveyed had moderate to significant challenges operating under the Windsor framework. Now, they are not the only ones with challenges. Due to the toxic nature of the debate, which people like you have introduced, anybody who is against the framework is deemed to be against stability, jobs and investment. People have been afraid to speak out, but no more. They are speaking out and calling out the disruption that they face. Now, the challenge is to the other parties. Are they prepared to champion business? Are they prepared to put their heads above the parapet, admit that they got it wrong and set about putting it right?”
“Folks, if every Member who voted that day in Northern Ireland had voted Remain, guess what: Brexit would still have happened. Members are deluding themselves and confusing the people out there. We have to get back to the fundamentals. There is dwindling business support for arrangements that cripple industry. What industry? The movement of parcels, consumers, used agri-food vehicles, cars and veterinary medicine. In a previous debate, I outlined more than 30 areas of business that are affected by the Windsor framework, yet Mr Honeyford and others in the Chamber tell us, "I have heard no concern. I have no concern. The place is booming". <BR /> <BR />There is a survey by the FSB that some try to discredit, but what does it state?”
“The truth is, however, that, until this UK Government deal with the fundamental heart of the issue, which is that we have the continued application of EU law in this place, there will always be regulatory barriers and divergence that affect consumers and businesses alike. That is a statement of fact. Members can revert to media lines about the Brexit deal and about what happened, what did not happen and whose version of Brexit it is, but this version is clearly that of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. They called for it, championed it and ensured that barriers were put up to prevent consumers from accessing goods across Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I have often heard in debates in this place that Northern Ireland voted to remain.”
“I will in a moment. <BR /> <BR />The issue matters. Whenever we come to issues of such importance, we have to remember that we have been here before. Whether we are talking about Brexit itself or any version that followed, they have not enjoyed the unanimous support of the House. Arrangements post Brexit — this should concern any Member who understands Northern Ireland politics, its complexities and the need for cross-community consent — have never enjoyed cross-community consent in this place. That should be of concern, and that in itself merits debate in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Dodds raised a salient point. We are dealing with the consequences of a Brexit deal that was botched by consecutive UK Governments.”
“The Member is absolutely right. I would argue that we have had a spirited debate, because the issue fundamentally matters.”
“I will in a moment. <BR /> <BR />What about the consumer who faces increased costs in accessing cars? Mr Honeyford may not remember — maybe a summer mirage is affecting his opinion — what he said when the second-hand car dealers came to Stormont. What did he say? Mr Honeyford said, "It seems like you guys have got the worst of both worlds", yet he talks today about dual market access, reverting to his media type rather than identifying facts. <BR /> <BR />I will give way to Mr Frew.”
“Mr Honeyford is fundamentally wrong on every item. Each of those issues is contained in the motion. <BR /> <BR />Members opposite want to say, "My goodness, how dare the DUP bring up the issue of the Windsor framework in its first motion for debate after we come back?". Why did we do that? We did it because it affects so many sectors in Northern Ireland, whether that is farmers on the one hand — we already know their credentials when it comes to farming — or, on the other, small businesses. What about the consumer who faces increased costs for parcels —?”
“Was that the constructive, solution-focused mindset that we so often hear about in Sinn Féin's media lines? Absolutely not. <BR /> <BR />We then had the Alliance Party tell us that it is a champion of small business. It was no champion of small business when it voted through over 300 areas of law with scant scrutiny, to the detriment of small businesses, and no scrutiny for dealers of second-hand agricultural tractors, who face the myriad of bureaucracy associated with a framework in respect of which — let us be real, folks — it called for a worse version to be rigorously implemented. The Alliance Party has more faces than the town clock. Mr Honeyford said that the motion is not about jobs, stability, investment or our economy.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />For the first day back, it has been a spirited debate, but it did not take long for some of the typical accusations and slanging to come from across the Chamber. First, there was a tantrum from the leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Toole, who told us to "grow up". Does that not summarise the SDLP's approach to unionists' concerns about the Windsor framework and the protocol? That party's leader said that there could be civil disobedience "at a very minimum" if it did not get its way on post-Brexit conditions. We then had Sinn Féin tell us in the Chamber that it is "solution-focused". It was not solution-focused when it did not want even so much as a camera at the border or when Michelle O'Neill and Mary Lou were breaking down fake bricks at the border.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Whilst I agree that the motion lays bare the situation that faces small business under the Windsor framework, would the Member accept that, in not having this place and his right to articulate that view, he would, essentially, be surrendering it to a UK and Labour Government, who are intent on hardening it even further?”
“Minister, in all such discussions, I start from the position of common sense, namely that it is an indisputable, biological fact that a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that any gender services that are commissioned by his Department will not affirm self-proclaimed definitions that deny biological reality and that, as reported in some cases, children as young as five will not be subject to manipulation or indoctrination in affirming a biological impossibility? <BR /> <BR />Will the Minister explain why he is undertaking the review now, rather than before he allocated £800,000 of public money?”
“School transport safety is of paramount concern to parents. In that regard, I thank the Minister for his engagement over the past year to resolve an issue in my constituency in The Birches. Through the Minister's engagement, that rural area was able to ensure that it had a service for its pupils. Is the Minister content that he is ensuring that we get the best bang for our buck when it comes to relationships and contractual arrangements with Translink and other third-party bus operators?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Will he accept that an issue, support for which has deeply divided Northern Ireland and continues to affect Northern Ireland businesses of all sorts, is worthy of debate in the Assembly?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He raises an interesting point. Surely we are now at the point where, although the UK Government are determined to have a reset of relationships, as they call it, with the EU, that is actually going beyond that point and is now undermining more businesses in Northern Ireland that have genuine issues with trade in the current situation.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the survey is an indicator that the Windsor framework, whilst it has no consent from unionism in this place, is now widely discredited among businesses across the piece in Northern Ireland?”
“The added insult to injury was heightened in the past week with the introduction of foreign certificates to bring second-hand machinery, including tractors, from GB back into Northern Ireland. Gareth Gault of Grassmen, a long-time advocate for Northern Ireland farming and the rural way of life, has pointed out how ludicrous it was that the return of tractors from the Highland Show in Scotland, which he had brought to Scotland without any certificate, was blocked because of the bureaucratic nature of the provisions put in place by the EU. It defies all logic; there is no sense to it. I call on the UK Government to grow a backbone, deal with the issue and defend Northern Irish business interests.”
“It is not an orange and green issue, but one that affects every consumer across Northern Ireland who sees their costs spiralling as their supply chains are shredded as a result of the bureaucracy that has been imposed upon this place by a foreign entity. Divergence is clear, yet the Government's desire to hide behind the blanket and pretend that it will go away only heightens the problems that are faced. It is time that the UK Government took the matter in hand. It is even accounted for in the very protocol to which they signed up. Where divergence is found, there are mechanisms in that agreement that can help to address that.”
“It was sold as unlocking opportunities and being a necessity for business, yet the result has been quite the opposite: disruption, diversion, destruction and, indeed, deception. <BR /> <BR />The Federation of Small Businesses carried out a landmark survey on businesses' attitudes to the Windsor framework. It tells the House what many people who did not have the EU blinkers on said at the time. Some 58% of businesses that were surveyed stated that they were having moderate to significant challenges as a result of its implementation. Over a third have already ceased trade rather than deal with the new bureaucracy and associated compliance documents. <BR /> <BR />Significant disruption and diversion are happening day and daily.”
“Two and a half years ago, the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, agreed the Windsor framework. He said that it would enable Northern Ireland to become:”
“The Member was talking about looking at our particular conflict and drawing some comparisons. I draw his attention to John Hume's belief that no conflict is ever resolved by saying that one side is right. Rather, a lasting solution must respect the aspiration of both communities.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He has fleetingly mentioned some of his account of 7 October without any form of condemnation of the murder of over 1,000 people. Does he not find that grossly inappropriate?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that one of the most dangerous things here is the promotion of a one-sided narrative, based on lived experiences on Northern Ireland? Members should endorse not that but should endorse a balanced and nuanced approach, such as that in the amendment.”
“Israel has repeatedly said that it targets militants and their infrastructure while taking steps to minimise civilian harm: measures not afforded by Hamas. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I will say this: if we are truly committed to peace and want to recognise all suffering — I recognise that some have the will to do that — we must support efforts that recognise the responsibilities and rights of both peoples. I say to the Alliance Party that the amendment fits exactly what Mr McMurray said, and I call on it to consider supporting the amendment, which shows a road to peace that requires nuance, balance and honest engagement, not one-sided condemnation.”