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 25 of 46.
“Looking at the evidence that is in place and at the UK explanatory memorandum raises varying levels of concern, albeit that Members can look at it from different perspectives, as they have done throughout the debate. The Democratic Unionist Party tabled the applicability motion using the affirmative procedure — that is, procedurally, how it had to be tabled — but will ultimately and decisively vote against the regulation because of the potential that it will create a trade border and regulatory border. <BR /> <BR />At its core, the rationale for today's debate is quite simple. The Assembly will vote on the motion about the proposed regulation, and it will be clear whether it enjoys cross-community support.”
“I thank all Members for their contributions. Whether we agree or disagree on the content of particular non-agricultural GIs, it is important to say that the very fact that we are having the debate in the Chamber is progress, which is to be welcomed. <BR /> <BR />I take on board Mr Allister's point about regulation 18: whether or not there was an applicability motion, the impact is the same. I tend to look at this from a very honest perspective, and I believe that, wherever we have the opportunity to put on record our concerns about, or acceptance of, a particular issue, it is only right and fitting that we do so in the House. We have done that today. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that this is a hugely technical piece. Ms Sugden highlighted some of the technicalities.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It is important that we draw the distinction between non-agriculture GIs and agriculture GIs, because that is the point of the debate today. What is the view of the Alliance Party on democratic scrutiny? We have listened to the Member and, indeed, the Member for Lagan Valley Sorcha Eastwood rubbish the democratic scrutiny processes that are in place. Mr Beattie is right that this is an applicability motion: a Stormont brake for another situation. Does the Alliance Party support democratic debate and scrutiny of the regulations in the Chamber? Does the Member believe that the EU should be above and beyond and that we should just take it on goodwill that Europe is acting in our best interests and let it get on with it?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I notice the eye-rolling from the Member from the Alliance Party, but this is politics. This is debating the real-life issues. You said that you did not want to look back but wanted to look forward. This is a new EU law. This is not something that has happened in times past, so the Assembly is having its say and rightly so. <BR /> <BR />Mr O'Toole, I know that you mentioned — through the Speaker; sorry — the considerable issue of the Del Boy and Rodney who maybe wrote the UK Government explanatory note, but they are not categorically sure that some of the impacts will not cause friction in Northern Ireland. That is the point that Mr Beattie raised. They are important points to debate, and I am sure that the Member will not rubbish those concerns completely.”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. He and the Member from the Alliance Party mentioned the risk to dual market access. Given that the EU has brought forward an entirely new regulation, the divergence risk here comes not from the Assembly or, indeed, the UK Government but principally from Brussels. Given the Member's pro-EU disposition, has he had the opportunity to raise the matter in the same vein or will he do so with the European Union, which, rather than the UK Government, is, in a sense, diverging?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he recognise that there is a distinct difference between non-agricultural GIs and agricultural GIs? Today's debate is not about the Comber spud. It is about non-agricultural GIs. It is important to put that on the record for clarity, rather than cascade different views.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. On that point, all Members were made aware of this on 21 February, when the Cabinet Office sent correspondence to the Committee that included the UK Government's explanatory memorandum. That was copied, through the Speaker, to all Departments. <BR /> <BR />I think that the point that the Member is trying to make, which is an important point, is that the ability to scrutinise an applicability motion falls outside the powers of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee; it has no scrutiny role in this particular new EU law. We are therefore using the appropriate mechanism that is at our disposal, which is to have a debate in this place, in order to send a clear message, to both the UK Government and the EU, that we have a voice on this issue. We are putting it on the record.”
“<BR /> <BR />It was always right for the people of Northern Ireland to have a say in preventing the application of EU law that is damaging to our economic rights within the United Kingdom. That is exactly why we will vote against the new EU law, which is being foisted on the people of Northern Ireland, and our hope is that others will join us in using the democratic mechanism to do the same.”
“As a member of the EU scrutiny Committee, I have had sight of potentially damaging EU law, ranging from dental fillings to vehicle standards and everything in between, that will require the House's full scrutiny in due course. <BR /> <BR />At this point, I put on record my sympathies to our Committee member Steve Aiken on the loss of his father-in-law. I know that this issue exercised Steve greatly. He spoke to me about it in private, and, indeed, I am sure that it will be reflected in his leader's comments. <BR /> <BR />The EU must understand clearly that our primary objective is the protection of our people and our businesses. It should be in no doubt that we will use every legitimate tool at our disposal to ensure their viability and prosperity.”
“The point that I am trying to make to the Member is that the supply chain is complex. Often, some of our manufacturers will look for cheaper supply costs, and that can be, due to economies of scale, from across the United Kingdom. This regulation has the potential, as outlined in the UK Government's explanatory note, to cause friction and barriers. That is something that this party is firmly against. <BR /> <BR />It is hardly surprising that the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons described it as a significant legal change. Surely, regardless of political views on Brexit or otherwise, Members can recognise the risks associated with the new EU law. Surely they can put the interests of local indigenous businesses before those of the unaccountable EU. It is not an isolated issue.”
“It could even result in UK authorities having to police the websites of companies in Northern Ireland to see whether they are protecting the EU craft products, as per article 60 of the regulation.”
“I will come to the point in a moment. Therefore, when we limit choice, we increase costs. As I said, that is just one example. We can really comprehend in all of the issues — this is but one — how additional supply chain costs can be applied and put strain on local businesses. As elected representatives, we have not only a duty to act but a responsibility to do so. <BR /> <BR />According to the UK Government's explanatory memorandum, the regulation could mean new checks at ports, to the benefit of EU companies far more than their Northern Ireland counterparts. It could have implications for GB to NI movements. It could mean Northern Ireland being cut out from free trade agreements in some areas.”
“Fabric produced in GB might no longer be legally marketed in Northern Ireland. For example, if Donegal tweed obtained protection in the Republic of Ireland, UK authorities would be responsible for removing non-compliant products from our local market. That is just one example. We can talk about supply chains and about how, when there is availability of choice, we can drive down prices. Therefore —”
“<BR /> <BR />The new EU law before the House is on the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products. What will it mean for Northern Ireland? A lot of people have been asking that question, and I have no doubt that the leader of the Opposition will come to that in due course. The new proposal would mean a substantial expansion of EU intellectual property law in Northern Ireland covering craft and industrial goods. It would add 56 pages of EU law to the Windsor framework, all under the oversight of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Most significantly of all, it would create a new and unacceptable regulatory border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. <BR /> <BR />I give the following example for Members' understanding of the new regime.”
“I can say only that I am working to the procedures that the Assembly has in place. <BR /> <BR />One of the key issues throughout the period of Brexit turmoil and turmoil in post-Brexit trading conditions has always been the concern regarding the cross-community consensus politics that we need in Northern Ireland. It has been repeated time and again in the House that not one unionist signed up to the original protocol or the provisions in it. That is an important point, because today we have the ability for the Assembly to express its view. I will wait to see the outcome of that vote, but, given the commentary that I have heard prior to the debate, I venture to say that it will be expressed clearly again in the House today that unionism en bloc will, in all likelihood, vote against the recommendations.”
“I thank the Member for her timely intervention. It is an issue about which she has spoken passionately to me privately, as well as publicly, during her time as a Member of the European Parliament. Her knowledge of such issues is extensive. In the constituency that we both represent, we have had many people who fall into that category: sadly, they have had laws imposed on them and their businesses to the detriment of the Northern Ireland economy. <BR /> <BR />On the wider point, the Member is absolutely right that democratic consent is something that no Member of the House should ever take for granted, regardless of the particular EU law that we are talking about.”
“<BR /> <BR />The legal position in relation to new areas of EU law is clear: the UK Government can add the new EU regulation to the scope of the framework only with the express consent of unionists and nationalists voting in the Chamber, save in exceptional circumstances or where the Government can demonstrate that a new EU law would not create trade barriers within the United Kingdom. However, we are not willing to contemplate a situation in which political forces, whether in Dublin or Brussels, can use the silence of the Assembly on this or any other EU law to exert pressure on the Government at Westminster to abandon the principle of cross-community consensus.”
“While legislative procedures may dictate certain distinct phraseology, there can be no doubt about our motivation for bringing the motion to the House today. That speaks directly to the point that the leader of the Opposition raised. <BR /> <BR />The legislation is clear: any Member from any party can table an applicability motion. It is a means to an end. For our part, we will vote decisively against the motion and against the imposition in Northern Ireland of the new EU regulation. It is clear to the Democratic Unionist Party and all of those who will join us in the No Lobby that the new EU law would create a new regulatory border within the United Kingdom.”
“I will definitely come on to that, because it is an important point for clarity in the debate. However, such were your concerns for craft producers that you did not even table an applicability motion yourself. Where was the concern from the brave Mr O'Toole when it came to representing their cause in the Chamber? He also said that, if we do not debate the issue today, it goes ahead regardless; it does not apply. That is an important point for the Member to address in his remarks later. <BR /> <BR />The Member is right: bizarrely, the legislation that sets out the required procedures dictates that a motion is brought to the Assembly in the affirmative; in other words, it seeks consent for the rule to be added.”
“The Democratic Unionist Party and wider unionism has made it a key objective from day 1 to tackle the democratic deficit created by the protocol. Today's proceedings are testimony to the fact that what our opponents said was impossible was, indeed, possible. I have particularly noted the comments from the leader of the official Opposition, Mr Matthew O'Toole, in recent days. They must be the only Opposition in the world who are not looking to debate an issue or scrutinise potential legislation. On one hand, I cannot understand that, but, on the other, such was his concern about craft —.”
“They did not just tolerate the democratic deficit that deprived them of any say; they called for it to be rigorously implemented.”
“At the outset, it is important to note that this is the first time that the Northern Ireland Assembly will vote on whether a new EU law should apply in Northern Ireland. That, in itself, Members, is a significant moment. Regardless of individual views that will be expressed in the debate, it is still significant. <BR /> <BR />The very fact that the Assembly is able to debate and express its view on the matter is something that many in the Chamber said should never happen and could never be achieved. The issue has been debated and voted on in this place over many years, and it is a matter for the record that there are parties present in the Chamber today that were cheerleaders for the undemocratic arrangements conceived under the original protocol.”
“It is time that we stood up for farmers and ensured that their voice is represented.”
“That is absolutely scandalous when we compare it with this statistic, and this is a fact: in the last five years, 89,000 dairy and beef cows have been culled for having TB — 89,000, Mr Speaker. That is ridiculous and is an indictment of the political classes that put the need for a targeted cull of badgers, which is a small number, over and above the livelihoods of farmers in Northern Ireland. It is high time that we got a grip of the issue. <BR /> <BR />The ammonia strategy is another issue. We have restricted our poultry sector, which has always had a proud reputation across the world. Because of the ammonia policies that have been introduced, that sector is unable to expand and develop. That applies not just to the poultry sector but across the board.”
“We have always been proud of our agri-food sector. We have put it up in lights across the world when we compare the great produce and the family origins of food that is produced on this island, particularly in Northern Ireland, with that from elsewhere. <BR /> <BR />There are issues today that are existential threats to the sector. The first is TB. TB costs the taxpayer in Northern Ireland roughly £50 million a year. We know that there are potential solutions. There have been targeted culls in England that have had positive results in bringing the number down, yet we in Northern Ireland still sit on our hands rather than get on to try to support that farming industry. Not one badger has been legally culled in Northern Ireland.”
“They feel that, given the current direction of laws, they are being legislated against rather than enabled to fulfil their true potential and add to the Northern Ireland economy.”
“I will talk about an issue that is close to many hearts in Northern Ireland, Mr Speaker, including yours: the farmer. The farmer has been the staple blood of Northern Ireland's society since its inception. I doubt that there is a single Member who, if they trace their roots back far enough, will not find some form of farmer connected to their family name. When we enter the Building and show people around, we look at the three pillar industries that supported Northern Ireland: shipbuilding, linen and the agriculture sector. Two have, sadly, become less relevant over the years, although there has been something of a renaissance in shipbuilding, but agriculture has been the staple. <BR /> <BR />Sadly, however, the view among many farmers in Northern Ireland is that the political classes no longer care about them.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he recognise that, if we look at those areas and communities in particular, often when an industry takes root, business continues to grow, and, indeed, wealth is generated? Those apprenticeships also grow our employment and skills base in those areas, which are great examples.”
“We talked about the apprenticeship levy and how that resource is being taken away when it should be put into the Northern Ireland economy. Let us focus on what synergy there can be across Departments to ensure that we give apprentices the opportunities that they deserve and employers a workforce that is fit for purpose as our economy changes, albeit for the better.”
“I thank the Member for that vital point. There are huge opportunities in our public sector. We are going through a moment of great change in our economy. Let us look at this. Birth rates are at a historic low in the Western World. There will be a huge push towards AI technologies to meet the demands created by a workforce no longer being there and towards the automation of work lines in more public-facing services, such as manufacturing or agri-food. It will still, however, require the input of skilled young people and, indeed, people of all ages, who apply through the likes of apprenticeships and can man those machines. It is applicable to the public sector as well. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the opportunity to celebrate apprenticeships and to target resource.”
“We need to take that point up with our Education colleagues as well, because, fundamentally, when we approach the topic of further and higher education, both are to be celebrated, as both bring great opportunity. If we look at the role of apprenticeships — they have the ability to pay good wages and allow people to earn while they learn — we see that they have a transformational impact. I believe that we are not selling that message at an early enough stage. I mentioned at Committee that, quite often, the conversations are had when children are picking their GCSEs or A levels. Opinions have often been formed by that stage, not in all cases but in some, and, therefore, our young people do not fully grasp the potential opportunities that exist.”
“One issue has been mentioned by all parties, and it is really interesting to see that it is a point of unanimity for the Committee: we all recognise the huge emphasis that there must be on better careers provision to ensure that we can train and offer opportunities to the workforce of the future. In many cases, it has been lacklustre. We can all look at our personal examples and see that some of the career opportunities that were offered to young people were bad — in fact, some of them were terrible — in different times gone by. <BR /> <BR />I tend to feel, however, that there must be much more cross-departmental working on that point.”
“We have a ready workforce that could easily be applied to growth sectors, which would ensure that we can continue to develop the economy.”
“We have significant gaps. There has been an inability of economies in the Western World to re-pivot their workforce towards the sectors that are growing. We have been too slow in acting, so I welcome the motion and the recognition that we must pivot to keep pace with the economy. <BR /> <BR />On that point, I pay tribute to former Economy Ministers Gordon Lyons and Diane Dodds, who recognised the need for apprenticeships and put them at the heart of a skills strategy and the 10X Economy. Traditionally, apprentices have always been looked on as being junior members of staff, but now we see the untapped potential of apprenticeships not only in those junior years but throughout life to tackle the issue of economic inactivity.”
“I went for an interview for an electrical apprenticeship at an agri-food company, and sitting across from me was the Member for Mid Ulster Keith Buchanan, who interviewed me that day. I was 17 years of age. I am pleased to say that he gave me the job. In the end, I did not take it up, but never did I think that we would cross paths again in the apprenticeship world of politics. <BR /> <BR />That is a vital example of how interwoven apprenticeships already are in the Northern Ireland psyche. There is much more work to be done. We have to support apprenticeships. When we look at the significant issues facing the Northern Ireland economy, one thing that comes up time and time again — it has come up again in the debate — is the skills gap. The first thing a potential investor looks at is the skills that an economy has.”
“I welcome the motion. It is a timely opportunity for the House to recognise and celebrate the key contribution that apprentices have played in the Northern Ireland economy. We can all relate to experiences where we have interacted with apprentices and seen the key contributions that they have made in a number of sectors. Looking back, we may think that they were very much in traditional crafts, training to be electricians, builders and joiners. However, that field has grown, and it continues to grow with exciting new opportunities. <BR /> <BR />For my sins, my first interaction with the working world was as an apprentice. I risk embarrassing a Member, but he is not here.”
“I apologise to the Minister for not being here for the start of his statement. He will be aware that the majority of domestic animals have the potential to be dangerous if they get into the hands of the wrong owners. What efforts can the Department make to ensure that we do not gaslight particular breeds but, rather, run out of town dangerous and irresponsible owners of this breed and others?”
“That will be crucial if we are to cement long-term, sustainable devolution. I am afraid that provisions such as an Ad Hoc Committee or, indeed, those debated earlier will not provide that clarity or certainty.”
“I have only three minutes, and I know that there will be time at the end. <BR /> <BR />I chair that Committee, and I look forward to working constructively with every member of it to discuss the issues that have been raised in today's debate, whether by the Alliance Party, the SDLP or other parties. The vast majority, bar the TUV and People Before Profit, are represented on that Committee. We have a Sinn Féin Deputy Chair. We have the Alliance Party, the DUP, Sinn Féin again and Cara Hunter from the SDLP, who will represent the Opposition. That is the place in which those conversations will continue, in which parties can put their legitimate concerns on the record and in which the Committee can do a detailed piece of work and report its findings. The matter will be resolved, however, only if there is consensus across the House.”
“Looking in particular at the formation of another Committee, I share the sentiment that was expressed by Sinn Féin's Pat Sheehan. The Opposition look at me with rolling eyes, but what is the point of the formation of another Committee? Surely this place is "committeed" to death. It is in the remit of the Assembly and established under its procedures that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee look at those very matters.”
“The Opposition will be glad to hear that I intend to be brief. There is no point in going over significant ground that was covered in the earlier Opposition debate. The party's position on the issues that have faced the Assembly over the past 25-odd years has been made clear. At the heart of it — all Members who spoke touched on this — is the need for consensus politics. That will be crucial, not only now but in the time to come. At different times, these institutions and the wider political scene faced troubles in Northern Ireland. It was only through consensus politics that we were able to chart a way through. It is no different now from how it was in times past.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I am thankful for the manner in which the Department has stepped in thus far. The Minister will agree that this is an alarming, recurring situation, particularly with one of the practices. Is the Minister aware of any other practices across Northern Ireland that are in a similar position, on the brink of handing back their contracts?”
“The political arrangements in Northern Ireland must be capable of commanding the broad support of all traditions across our Province. The motion before the House simply implies that devolution could still operate and succeed outside those parameters. That is fanciful to say the least. Cross-community consent has been essential to achieving progress in the Province, and it should be viewed as the solution not the problem.”
“I will have to continue to get through. <BR /> <BR />We live in a contested place. The best way to defend the institutions from collapse is ultimately to ensure that we talk about issues that affect everyday working families, our front-line workers and our schoolchildren, as well as how to protect the most vulnerable in society. That is where the Programme for Government priorities should be. It is not by coincidence but by design that the mechanisms for review are not only built into strand one but rest outside the Executive. That reflects the real need to ensure that all Members and parties have a stake in and the space to give attention to them. <BR /> <BR />Consensus politics is the only way in which we can stave off instability.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. That leads me to my next point, which is that the inescapable truth is that we live —.”
“The inescapable truth is that we live in a contested society.”
“No, it is true. I will speak to the record, actually, to the leader of the Opposition:”
“The SDLP MP Claire Hanna was on record as saying that, in such circumstances —”
“However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we live in a contested space, emerging from decades of terrorism. Success is not always guaranteed in that regard. This is a reminder of the need to preserve rather than destroy the delicate balance of community relations that is interwoven into strand one of the agreement. <BR /> <BR />Issues of instability, regardless of from which political party or community they may come, can often be complex, as has been seen in recent times. Let us look at the most recent issue of instability. We had arrangements foisted upon the people of Northern Ireland that not one democratically elected unionist could support — not one. If we had a similar situation arise whereby, for example, nationalism had an issue, would that likely lead to a similar outcome?”
“I think that we will hear plenty from the official Opposition shortly. <BR /> <BR />Finally, there is no motion from Mr O'Toole, the Chair of the Finance Committee, on the Budget. Given that a UK Budget will be set out later this week, surely a motion outlining those concerns would be the people's priority, rather than petty point-scoring from the official Opposition. Instead, we have a motion on proposed changes to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement from the party of super-majorities, rather than of accommodation. Is that the real party of John Hume? That question needs to be asked. <BR /> <BR />Turning to the issue of reform, we do not deny that the challenges to the stability of the institutions and the length of time that the Executive and Assembly have not fully functioned over the past 25 years are regrettable.”