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 2 of 46.
“One Member said that Scotland may be an example to look at. The legislation in Scotland goes much further than what the Minister is suggesting today, in that it indicates potential imprisonment. That is not the case here. That is not the case in England, Wales or, indeed, the Republic of Ireland. They all have specific legislation because they recognise that the protection of vulnerable young people needs to coexist with the rights and standards that teachers deserve. <BR /> <BR />In closing, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker —.”
“If, for example, an allegation of environmental misconduct or poor food safety standards is made against a restaurant, it does not have the right to absent itself from the process just because it feels that it is unfair. No, it has to submit to that process. That is why we need to remove the genuine need for strike action and action short of strike by having inspections that have best standards and safeguarding at their heart. That is what the Bill is about.”
“Nobody has indicated that they are against inspections, so the principles stand. The point is that Members have turned this into a political dogfight when it did not have to be one. If you are serious about legislating in the interests of all our young people, you would allow the Bill to get a fair hearing. <BR /> <BR />Just imagine the outrage if, because of union action, the RQIA was unable to go into a nursing home, for example, about which families of patients had genuine concerns. Every Member would be on their hind legs in the Chamber ensuring the right for the inspector to go in and ensure that adequate safeguarding was in place. It is the same when it comes to prisons, hospitals and even small business owners.”
“The most despicable aspect of it all is that they have attempted to whip teachers up into a frenzy by saying that we are legislating against their legitimate rights. Teachers still have the right to strike and the right to take action short of strike — rightly so — and I will defend their right to do that. However, please do not come into the Chamber with political games on an issue so serious as child safeguarding. That is despicable to say the least. <BR /> <BR />Ms Hunter mentioned the Scottish legislation and said that we could perhaps learn from it. The place to debate that is at the Committee. You would not send the Bill to the Committee if you did not agree at all with its general principles. The general principles are that we respect inspections, that there is a need for them in schools and that there is a desire to protect them.”
“Let us fill in the blanks that Mr Sheehan, Mr Baker and Mrs Mason did not want to talk about in their contributions or, indeed, that Mrs Dillon did not mention in her intervention: the Sinn Féin ministerial team directly engaged with the Minister of Education to find a Bill that could come before the House today and command consensus. The Minister of Education gave a few concessions, which were welcomed by the party opposite, so that the Bill could be presented on the Floor today. Something changed at the weekend for those Members to do a complete one-eighty on the legislation. Do you know what is so sad? This is meant to be about safeguarding children and ensuring that the inspection process is fit for purpose.”
“That shows the fundamental misunderstanding of Sinn Féin Members. It is legislative incompetence in the most extreme. Mrs Dillon just referred to the Hunting with Dogs Bill. The Hunting with Dogs Bill is a private Member's Bill. It was nowhere near the Executive. To cite that as an example of legislation from the Executive just shows how incompetent their approach is when dealing with serious matters. I am sorry that I am now becoming much more exercised on the Bill, but this is so serious. You do not even recognise the difference between an Executive Bill and a private Member's Bill. <BR /> <BR />The term "economical with the truth" was used today. Sinn Féin is being economical with the truth in the extreme.”
“We hear about the democratic process, but the question is clear. Your Minister —.”
“I am at pains to understand Sinn Féin's position on the Bill, despite the many interjections from the Member for West Belfast Mr Sheehan, who is not in the Chamber. Sinn Féin's conduct has been duplicitous and two-faced, to say the least. The Minister may make a point about Sinn Féin's engagement with the Bill. In the first instance, it did not find elements of the Bill acceptable. It then entered into direct conversation with the Minister to ensure that consensus was found. Do Sinn Féin Members in the Chamber not speak to their Ministers? Can Mr Baker or Mrs Mason not speak to the fact that their Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, engaged directly with the Minister on the Bill to find a way forward? Did that Minister not speak to the Members? I will give way if they want to respond.”
“The Member is right: nobody is advocating banning strike action or action short of strike for teachers. This is a particular aspect where we must ensure that strike action does not impede the work of the inspectorate in ensuring safe standards in our school system, that our pupils with SEN have the chance to flourish and are not neglected, that children who are affected by the most horrendous safeguarding issues are able to have their voices and those of their parents heard, and that the system is protecting them. We are guardians of that system, and, where we know that risk exists, we would be negligent not to address it. <BR /> <BR />I want to move on; the Member brought up an interesting theme. There is no criminal sanction in the Bill — that does not exist — so the lines that Members keep parroting could not be further from the truth.”
“I will in a moment. <BR /> <BR />Their voice has often been overlooked. I know many parents who also sometimes look at aspects of our education system with despair. Giving an education inspectorate the ability to come unimpeded into a setting despite whatever challenges there are deserves further consideration.”
“<BR /> <BR />Inspection should never, ever be used as a bargaining chip in industrial relations or negotiations. You cannot say, on the one hand, "We never intend this to be used; we recognise inspections as an integral part of the school system", and, on the other, "You should never, ever legislate to make sure that it's not abused". That should not be the case. We should genuinely give the Bill a fair wind, with the intention of minimising risk for young people.”
“I fully agree with the Member. For me, the saddest thing about the debate is hearing that we have pivoted to the extremes. We have teachers who are worried about the legislation when we have no need to worry them. We can assuage their concerns. We can debate this legislation, and we can take it into Committee and look at genuine ways of ensuring that we minimise — you can never eliminate, but you can minimise — risk. The Member is absolutely right. We have to take seriously the picture of society that is being painted right now; for many young people, it is not a pretty place. What would be more conducive to debate is Members engaging in facts rather than in the political spin that we have heard from some Members, because that is so far removed from the reality that many of our young people face.”
“We say, with a genuine spirit, that, with the best will in the world, the Assembly cannot turn its face against the reality that, potentially, there are bad actors in our school system. There are bad actors in every home across Northern Ireland. We simply do not know them. Sadly, as many Members have become more aware of the issues, such as child abuse, that face some homes and, indeed, some schools, they have become very aware that there are sick, depraved elements in society.”
“However, it would be remiss and negligent — we would be closing our eyes and ears — if we were not alert to the fact that, in every organisation, there are people who do not have the same genuine intentions; it may even be just one person. The Lloyd-Lavery case, for example, which has just finished, was one of historical abuse in the school system, and we found out about that only recently. Should the Assembly not seek, where possible, to limit the risk of exploitation of children in our system? That goes to the heart of the debate. Whether you agree with different inferences of how far-reaching a clause goes, continuing to Committee Stage would allow for further debate, given that it is an Executive-led Bill.”
“It was not the Minister who came up with the hare-brained idea to introduce the clause that many people have an issue with. The independent review of education advocated that change. Why? It is because the review identified that aspect as one of risk. Where there is risk in child safeguarding, we should do all in our power to ensure that we limit that risk. That is what that clause and the Bill in general are designed to do. <BR /> <BR />I agree totally that the vast majority in our teaching profession carry out their duties and go way beyond what is expected of them. Let that never be in doubt for any Member; let us just be factual and say that every Member values our teaching profession. They may go about it in different ways, but every Member values their contribution.”
“That was much required and should be celebrated. We have seen an increase in the number of professional development and training days, which the profession had been calling for for many years as it tried to deal with and navigate some of the more complex issues in schools. There has been much reference to teacher workload, and that is, absolutely, a priority issue. The Minister initiated the independent review of teachers' workload to deal with the profession's genuine concerns and, hopefully, address them with recommendations that make life easier for teachers but also create a more collaborative and conducive teaching environment for young people. That seems to have gone by the wayside for a lot of Members, who want to engage in political attacks on the Minister. The debate should not be about that.”
“The Minister, in his opening statement, outlined that, since the ETI and the unions had re-established much more productive relations — relations are more productive, as the Committee Chair also mentioned — there have been a couple of occasions of shortcomings in child safeguarding in schools, one of which required urgent intervention. That is a matter of serious importance for any Member who debates the Bill today. I encourage Members to think carefully about what voting down such a Bill means. <BR /> <BR />We have pivoted between extremes. We have tried to pit a Minister against teachers and to portray Members as not caring about teachers' existence or meaningful contribution. However, that does not stand up to scrutiny. Under the Minister, we have seen record pay settlements for our teaching profession.”
“That should worry everybody. <BR /> <BR />With that in mind, I thought that I was coming to the Chamber to debate an issue on which every political party has said that inspections are not the issue and that we all value their role in holding the wider apparatus to account and ensuring that we have a system that is fit for purpose. However, to say in the next breath that you will vote the Bill down is, I find, ridiculous. If, by means of the Bill, we protect just one child through an inspection not being stifled or obstructed, that surely should be the wish of every Member. Are we for real when we suggest that anybody, regardless of their position in the public sector, should be able to hold up or obstruct something that could identify a serious safeguarding issue? That goes to the heart of why I am speaking on the Bill.”
“I have taken a considerable interest in that issue in my political career in the Assembly. Nobody, regardless of political party, should be naive enough to think that serious safeguarding issues are not ongoing in our schools. If you take the time to talk to teachers — I do, and I suspect that others in the Chamber do — you will know that some of the issues that many of them are dealing with are complex, sad and worrying. Whether it is the system that has created vulnerable young children or whether those vulnerabilities lie in wider society, young people face some of the most desperate and difficult challenges in their home life and in society, including the rise of the internet and social media. There are so many issues going on. There are nearly 30,000 children across our school system who are significantly vulnerable.”
“I could not be prouder of the legacy that they have left to many of the young people who are now adults, prospering in our society and contributing to it. Many of them will look back at the contribution made by their teachers and believe that they were blessed to have many of those great people in their life. <BR /> <BR />All of that having been said, I have listened to how every party in the Chamber has said that inspections are valued and are an integral part of the school process. That is for many reasons, including the quality of education. My colleague mentioned SEN, something that we talk about often in this place, but there has been limited reference to that in the debate. More fundamentally, what led me to speak in the debate was the issue of safeguarding, an issue that Ms Hunter alluded to.”
“The debate has saddened me greatly. When I originally came into the Assembly Building to debate the Education Inspections Bill, I thought that we would have a genuine debate around the need for inspections in our schools and the need to protect all of those who attend our schools. Sadly, however, the debate has gone to the worst extremes that I could have imagined when I first came to debate it. In particular, that has come from Sinn Féin and in some of the interjections from the SDLP. I do not believe for one moment that there is any Member in the Chamber who does not value teachers and does not recognise the significant contribution that they make in educating our young people and wider society. I have family members who are teachers: I could not be prouder of their contribution.”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Is this the approach that will be adopted for all Executive legislation: that, if the debate goes over a certain time, there will be an adjournment for 20 minutes or more? I ask just for the benefit of Members.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The ChatGPT script will do well online when it comes to all the accusations that have been made, but let us get back to the reality of where we are today. Can the Member explain why, when the Minister , in consultation with other Executive parties, including her party colleagues, amended the Bill to move from criminal sanction to referral to a teachers' professional body, there was no dissent from Sinn Féin, which allowed the Bill to progress? What has changed since Sunday night that has left her party unable even to give the Bill simple scrutiny in Committee?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not think that it is interesting that the Sinn Féin Member avoided the central premise of the question that he has posed: the fact being that there is a criminal sanction in the Republic of Ireland, but a referral to the body in Northern Ireland, which, in theory, is an offence of lesser status? Does he not find the fact that Mr Sheehan missed that point entirely telling of the fact that Sinn Féin just wants to wreck the Bill rather than to get to the fundamental point of the safeguarding and protection of children?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Under similar legislation that exists across these islands, there have been no criminal convictions to date, as far as I am aware. Does the Member agree that that is a considerable consideration in trying to offset some of the legitimate concerns that teachers have about the clause?”
“There is no sense of structure or meaningful engagement. Who speaks for Sinn Féin? I do not know who does. Maybe you can explain.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. One thing that he said is true: legislation takes time. Good legislation, in order to ensure that it is right, takes even longer. It is not just the Minister who is confused by the Sinn Féin position. The Bill was submitted in 2024 to all of your Ministers, including your leader in the Assembly — the First Minister — Michelle O'Neill. They then appear to have worked with the Minister and his Department to shape a Bill that had the consent of their party to go forward for debate in the Chamber. I do not know what is happening in the internal ranks of Sinn Féin, but it appears that there is some sort of challenge to authority. Who speaks for you guys at the moment? Is it the First Minister, or is it the Back-Bench rebels of Mason, Baker and you at the Education Committee?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I noted some of the hisses when she gave that example, but I have to say that she has always stepped forward when it comes to safeguarding issues. I have worked with her on many issues pertaining to safeguarding. What the Member outlined, however, seems to be a reason to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee Stage, where those particular issues could be fleshed out. It seems to me that voting against the Bill today would go against what she outlined, which seems to be reasonable and fair, about looking at other jurisdictions to see where the balance is to be struck and ensure that safeguarding is at the heart of the Bill.”
“I thank the Chair of the Committee for taking the intervention. There is one part of his response to Mr Brooks that I find interesting: he said that he hopes that action short of strike will not be used in relation to inspections going forward, given the issues that we have talked about today. However, that is it: it is just his hope. We cannot predict the future. The Minister and the Department are trying to ensure that we do not run into a situation in five or 10 years' time — nobody can predict future relations — in which, ultimately, child safeguarding issues become paramount, yet there is no oversight from anybody.”
“The Minister has categorically demolished the sound bites from Sinn Féin and the SDLP on the matter. I will get back to the substance of the question. Some people have questioned the reliability of last year's admissions survey. What does the Minister have to say about that?”
“Is the Minister in a position to update the House on how the €11·7 million cooperation project to tackle bovine TB will be used for a wildlife management programme in Northern Ireland? He knows the significant impact that that particular strain of TB has had on local farmers. Will the project therefore include a cull of badgers that are infected with TB?”
“The Loughs Agency and the Department are key stakeholders in the management of fisheries in Lough Neagh. The Minister knows about the ongoing dispute about who owns the recreational and leisure angling rights on Lough Neagh. His Department continues to bury its head in the sand on the issue. Has the Minister or his Department had sight of a lease, licence or deed? Does he agree that, in the absence of such information, the Lough Neagh Fishermen's Co-operative has no right to claim ownership and put legitimate, legal, licence-holding anglers off the lough?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member who gave way. She treated my point with courtesy and respect rather than sneering from the corner. <BR /> <BR />I will finish my point. Two peer-reviewed pieces of research were done in England and Scotland: the Burns inquiry and Lord Bonomy's review, which have been mentioned. Both indicated that the law did not have a net beneficial impact on animal welfare. That point has to go to the heart of the debate, so that we get the desired outcome that the Member wants, which is better animal welfare.”
“Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I could continue —”
“I appreciate the Member's leniency in giving way to me again. I reiterate this point: the fact that such a law has existed in England, Scotland and Wales since 2004 does not necessarily mean that we should import what could be bad law. Of the two peer —”
“I thank the Member for giving way again. My point was that there are many farmers in our countryside who advocate for hunting because they see it as the most effective way in which to manage animal welfare.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does she equally accept the point that there are many farmers who advocate for animal welfare and also for hunting in legitimate ways?”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Does the Member agree that, given that this is the second iteration of a Bill introduced by the Bill sponsor, the fact that he cannot define those terms and that he says, "It could be", "might be" or "may well be" all-encompassing is a considerable worry for anybody who engages in legitimate hunting activity, and that it demonstrates why the Bill is not workable?”
“It is interesting that Mr Blair wants to interrupt me, but I will finish my point and —.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. That raises a considerable point: it is "a catch-all", which means all hunting activity. Does the Member agree that it is extremely worrying that, in the second —?”
“They have been an integral part of my family home. If I knew anybody who would dare bring harm to them, I would have them before the court of law. The suggestion made by some today that such practice is widespread is nothing short of ridiculous. <BR /> <BR />In drawing my remarks to a close, I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate, regardless of whether I agreed with them. It is fair to say that, if the Bill is to meet the tests that were outlined by the Sinn Féin Member Ms Murphy, significant amendment will be required. I will vote against the Bill, because I do not agree with its intent, its broad legal definitions or the consequences that it would impose on our rural way of life. For those reasons, I will vote against it.”
“I will, in a moment. <BR /> <BR />Mr Blair spoke in his opening remarks about the cruel practice of hunting groups towards their hounds and dogs. Mr Blair, if you have evidence of that happening in Northern Ireland — evidence of actions that are illegal and prosecutable before the law — I suggest that, instead of smearing those with a genuine love for dogs, you bring that information to the police and have those people prosecuted. I will be with you every bit of the way, ensuring their prosecution. The facts remain: anybody who has dogs for hunting purposes, be they cocker spaniels, springer spaniels, Labradors, beagles or any other type of hound, love their animals. They love their dogs. Their dogs are treated with the utmost care and attention. I have had a hound since I was no height. They were treated with love, care and affection.”
“It has been presented today that, on the basis of the consultation, we are to expect that this is a foregone conclusion for everybody. The consultation was responded to by 0·25%, not even a percentage point, of the Northern Ireland population. That is not a basis on which anyone can claim they speak for the entirety of a Northern Ireland community, just as I would acknowledge that I do not speak for the entirety of the rural community.”
“Surely, it would be easy to pull together scientific evidence of the legitimate protection of the populations that it seeks to protect. Members, it does not exist. There has never been any evidence to substantiate the intent behind an outright ban on hunting with dogs. <BR /> <BR />We are here to legislate not on the basis of emotion, perception or online claims but on the basis of evidence, principle and real-world consequences of decisions that we make collectively as a body. The Bill does not improve animal welfare; it does not reflect rural realities; it does not provide legal certainty; it does not respect the rights of responsible dog owners; and it does not command the confidence of those who manage the countryside. It is bad law.”
“It is important to put that on the record today, because it is the only research on the post-hunting ban period, and no one can claim that a ban on hunting with dogs is categorically good for animal welfare. <BR /> <BR />The Burns inquiry in England and Wales and Lord Bonomy's review in Scotland gathered scientific evidence from across the board to assess the impact of the Acts, and they could point to no way in which animal welfare had been protected. The findings will be disputed by anti-hunt groups, but it brings me to another question: why has the Alliance Party or the lobby that it represents today not spent a single pound to demonstrate the positive animal welfare impacts of a ban on hunting with dogs? The ban has been there since 2004.”
“Briefly, the status of those animals has been changed by the hunting bans in England and Scotland, and a community-based conservation process was replaced by either pest control or commercial gain. <BR /> <BR />Much has been said about those who partake in shooting practices. Following the hunting ban, it became apparent in Exmoor that the quarry populations that the legislation sought to protect faced some devastating impacts. When amateur marksmen shot those animals, they ran for days with wounds. That is the consequence of bad law. That is the consequence of elected members following populist belief over scientific evidence. That is the consequence of abstaining from appropriate wildlife management.”
“OK. The book demonstrated the impact of the legislation on the rural way of life, and it showed the life of a fox, a brown hare and a red deer on Exmoor. I commented on the book when the Bill was discussed in 2021. Nobody took issue with it then; in fact, I expected the Members who advocated animal welfare to have read the book. That Bill did not meet the objectives. The book that I referenced pointed to the impact on quarry populations of the removal of legitimate hunting. To my knowledge, no Member has read that book. It stated that conditions for the quarry populations, for which I have the utmost respect, had been made considerably worse in a variety of ways and for a number of reasons.”
“I am merely outlining why I have referred to the book.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. In any debate, a Member is entitled to refer to any evidence, peer-reviewed or scientific, that supports the principles of an intended Bill or otherwise. That is exactly what I am doing.”
“I know for a fact that he has been given a copy of Charlie Pye-Smith's book, 'Rural Wrongs: Hunting and the Unintended Consequences of Bad Law'. I recommend that all Members read that book, because it is the only study of the welfare effects of the Hunting Act 2004 and its equivalent in Scotland. I was pleased to be invited to the launch of the book at Westminster. I will give way to any Member from the Alliance Party, including the Minister, who has read that book.”