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 3 of 46.
“Would any sensible person who was genuine in their aim to improve animal welfare not look to other parts of the UK that have already banned hunting with dogs in order to assess the effects? Would that not be a reasonable first step? I have a question for the Bill sponsor, although, to be fair to him, he has left the Chamber for a glass of water or a comfort break.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Those were the exact comments that I made in 2021. Those remarks were not challenged by the Chair and they were received with the same sneering contempt from the Alliance Party, but they are factual. There is an attack on the rural way of life by the Alliance Party and by activists associated with it. I do not include in that description everybody who absolutely values animal welfare; I am saying that the Bill will have devastating consequences for how rural populations go about their business, how we manage wildlife and how we ensure that the countryside has the protection that it deserves. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly should not be a vehicle for the Alliance Party's ideological agenda.”
“— then any form of countryside management that does not fit their ideological world view.”
“When I listened to Ms Murphy's points, I sensed that she agreed with every one of those statements. <BR /> <BR />My contention is that the Bill is not amendable. I say that with regret. I would much rather have seen an amendment brought forward by the Minister and his Department — an office that Mr Blair's party occupies — to ensure that we had appropriate legislation that ensured respect for rural communities and made sure that their contribution was valued and their activity in rural life appreciated. <BR /> <BR />Today's debate is about hunting with dogs. When those against hunting with dogs get their way today, tomorrow it will be shooting. There are Members sighing, but those are the inevitable consequences of the legislation that they are trying to push on the House. After that comes angling —”
“I agreed with many of the points that she raised in her contribution, but I find it staggering that anybody could back the Bill, particularly when it is so flawed. Take even the heading. I have not quite got my head around Sinn Féin's position on that yet, especially after looking at previous positions that have been held by the party, including by some in the Dáil. Matt Carthy TD has been on record as saying:”
“The Bill would replace community-based conservation with a vacuum that will inevitably be filled with less humane, less targeted and less effective means of control. That is not progress; that is not welfare; and that is not conservation. The Bill is driven by activism, not evidence. <BR /> <BR />We must be honest about the motivation behind the Bill. The Bill has not been shaped by farmers, vets, ecologists or rural communities. It has been shaped by a particular activist group whose long-term agenda is not limited to hunting with dogs. <BR /> <BR />I note with interest Sinn Féin's position. In her contribution, Ms Murphy outlined how the Bill falls well short of what Sinn Féin expects any future legislation on hunting to pertain to.”
“It is a different debate, but think of TB, for example: that is a wildlife problem. The same thing happens with other mammal species. I have had the unfortunate experience of encountering a fox that was so riddled with mange and other diseases that it was unable to feed its young. That is cruelty in every sense of the word, and it exists in nature. As I said earlier, however, it is for man or woman not to turn a blind eye but to exercise effective wildlife management and pest control and, indeed, management of the countryside to ensure that we have a healthy balance in nature. Whatever the quarry population, whether fox, rabbit, mink or stoat, if it is not managed, it causes devastation. <BR /> <BR />We have talked about the management of wildlife populations.”
“However, some in the House try to present such cases as being in the majority; they are not. In the same way, the majority of those who partake in legal, defined hunting are not people on horseback with hounds but people from a multiplicity of professions. That needs to be taken into account. <BR /> <BR />In opening the debate, Mr Blair talked about preventing the spread of disease and, from some bizarre planet, tried to suggest that it is the dog that, by engaging in legitimate, legal activity, risks the spread of disease. That is so bizarre and so far removed from the realities of countryside life and rural management. The truth of the matter is that it is the predator populations that hunting tries to ensure are regulated and well managed; if they are not regulated, those quarry populations cause and spread animal disease.”
“That would recognise the need to control predator populations in the rural environment and ensure that anybody who engages in unlawful, unnecessary, cruel and evil exploits towards animals is efficiently dealt with before the law. <BR /> <BR />I mentioned the protection of ground-nesting birds and the safeguarding of livestock. Again, I know many farmers who use the expertise of the hunting fraternity to manage such livestock safeguarding. I take the points that Members raised about some hunts going over farmers' ground where they are not welcome and, in turn, in a minority of cases, causing distress to animals and to the land on which they have trespassed. We could have inserted in the 1972 Act stronger restraints on trespassing on land where a hunt is not welcome.”
“It has been reported to me repeatedly, by those who engage in pigeon racing or who keep hens or ducks, that other predator populations are not being controlled effectively. The Bill would put the scud on further controlling those populations. <BR /> <BR />Another unintended consequence of the Bill that we do not talk about often enough is that people will move underground, as it were, to more sinister and illegal aspects of hunting. That is not something that I want to see. I want to see something that meets animal welfare expectations but is grounded in common sense and reality and recognises that we cannot remove ourselves from ensuring that such populations are controlled. We could do that through the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. We could introduce a code of practice with an aspect relating to "undue suffering".”
“Understanding how even those of the shooting fraternity operate, where two or more are gathered with two or more dogs, they are liable for prosecution under the Bill. The issue of strict liability comes into play, and we have all in the past dealt with vexatious attempts to criminalise neighbours. The Bill runs the risk of setting one rural dweller against the another, and one urban resident against a rural dweller. It is simply not fit for purpose. <BR /> <BR />The example that I gave about the stoat and the weasel population is becoming more live and recurring. It is not something that I witnessed in my first 20-odd years of life, but it has become a much more regular occurrence.”
“The Member is fundamentally wrong. I will not go over the broad definitions in the Bill again for fear of repeating myself, but clause 2 would insert article 23B in the 1985 Order, which states:”
“Under this legislation, using a simple terrier — a household terrier — to remove that predator would be deemed an illegal activity. <BR /> <BR />I will give way.”
“They start with the head, and take the head off the shoulders. They do not kill it to eat it; they kill it for fun. Once they have killed that one, they go to the next one, and the next one, and the next one.”
“Yes, we all should read the Bill very carefully and understand its implications. <BR />If anyone has ever seen the impact that a fox can have in a controlled environment, they will know that it is a scene of utter devastation. I have seen chicken farmers who have had their birds ravaged by a fox. The Bill would outlaw other mammals from being hunted with dogs. I point to the weasel family, including minks and stoats. I do not often talk about it in the House, but I am engaged with the pigeon fraternity. I have been a pigeon racer all my life, as were my father and grandfather. It has been something of a family tradition. I have seen, as, perhaps, have Members from an urban environment — they can correct me if I am wrong — how a stoat can enter an enclosure through the smallest of spaces and rip birds apart. Do you know what they do?”
“Well, thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will continue in line with the Bill.”
“Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, in the Bill are the specific words "animal", "wildlife" and "management". It would be extremely wrong if I did not make reference to them in my contribution.”
“Absolutely. The Bill is an impediment to effective pest control. If any Member has ever seen the devastation caused by a fox in a controlled environment such as a henhouse —.”
“The Bill sponsor talked about its being included in the Bill, but anybody who fundamentally understands the countryside will understand that a farmer will often acquire the services of local huntsmen to use their expertise to ensure appropriate wildlife management of predator populations that are causing a risk to their flocks.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I have said, the Bill has placed on the Assembly a duty to legislate on hunting with dogs. The Assembly has a duty to legislate with precision, with fairness and with respect for the rule of law. The Bill fails that test. Those who promote the Bill often speak as though wildlife simply manages itself. It does not. Farmers, gamekeepers, conservation volunteers and rural communities have been the backbone of wildlife management for generations. Many Members have commented on the need to protect farmers' ability to protect their livestock. That is a fundamental issue for any Bill to address.”
“It removes the requirement for there to be intent and exposes ordinary dog owners to prosecution for what is natural canine behaviour. <BR /> <BR />When two of the most senior legal minds on this island sound the same alarm, the Assembly should listen. I remember when Mr Allister, the then Member for North Antrim, spoke in the Second Stage debate on the Hunting of Wild Mammals Bill. He spoke specifically about the strict liability clause. That point was not disproved in the debate, after which the Bill was defeated. Members tried to rubbish the claim of strict liability at the time, yet now we have John Larkin KC echoing that claim. One would think that those Members would have attempted to address that very matter between then and now, but that has not been done.”
“That is why his interpretation is important. Members, as I have said, it is this blue-papered Bill and its content that we will have to live by. John Larkin talks about its potentially being in breach of fundamental legal principles and, as I have said, being capable of criminalising innocent behaviour by responsible dog owners. He highlights the fact that the definition of "hunting" in particular in the Bill is so broad that any dog that pursues a wild mammal, even unintentionally, could place its owner at risk of prosecution. He further notes that the Bill will fail to provide legal certainty, which is a basic requirement of good lawmaking. When a former Attorney General says such things, it is enough for us to sit up and take note. The Bill introduces strict liability.”
“We are told that that is not the intention of the Bill, but that is interpretation of an eminent KC. He says that, put simply, it seems to him that dog ownership would be made more burdensome, if not dangerous, if the Bill were to be enacted. <BR /> <BR />He says about the explanatory and financial memorandum:”
“That is the only definition. That is what has caused alarm bells to ring for many Members. Hunting is much more than searching and pursuing. Dog walkers could be accused of searching and pursuing. John Larkin is quite clear about those particular parts. His opinion should be read into the record. He states:”
“Absolutely. That is one of the fundamental problems with the Bill. The Member mentioned article 23B(4), which states:”
“Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker, for the balanced way in which you approached those remarks. I must be hitting a nerve. I made no slight on the professionalism of the people who work in the Bill Office, but I absolutely shine a light on those who have brought forward poorly drafted legislation that could have detrimental impacts on, and unintended consequences for, the vast majority of rural householders in Northern Ireland.”
“Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I contend that my entire contribution has been within the confines of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Ms Bradshaw made a point of order that was not a point of order. I recommend that she put herself on the speaking list so that she can speak eloquently in the debate about why she believes that the Bill is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I have significant sympathy with the Bill Office. Quite often, it is presented with very poor private Member's Bills that do not pass the smell test, never mind any other test.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Here is my problem and why I raised such advice: much weight has been given to the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum. It says that the Bill's intent is not to criminalise the average dog walker whose animal pursues anything from a squirrel to a rabbit or any other mammal. However, the Bill is what matters. It is the Bill's content that will either criminalise a dog owner or not. Therefore, when an eminent KC puts forward a legal opinion on such a Bill, it is worth taking time to pause and reflect. He warns that the Bill, as a number of my colleagues have outlined, is legally unsound, ambiguous in key definitions —.”
“With all due respect to the Bill sponsor, I and, indeed, many people in Northern Ireland will put much greater weight on the response of such an eminent KC than on the opinion of Mr Blair and on a vaguely worded Bill that could have such far-reaching consequences. To dismiss the analysis outright and say that it is being used as diversion could not be further from the truth. Its conclusions should give every Member —.”
“Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will respect the fact that I have kept my remarks within the framework of the Bill, such is its large and far-reaching impact on hunting. Its definition is so broad that it takes in many aspects that need to be fully fleshed out in the debate. <BR /> <BR />I mentioned the statistic on cat kills of wildlife. The same study indicated that 0·2% of wildlife kills were by dogs. That goes to the heart of the debate. It is not my interpretation alone that the Bill will have far-reaching consequences. As has been mentioned, it is the view of one of the most respected and highly qualified KCs in the country, our former Attorney General John Larkin. He has provided detailed legal analysis of the Bill.”
“No, I will not. I have watched how Mr Honeyford has sniggered and laughed throughout the debate. He has a different opinion from mine, which I respect but disagree with, but I find sniggering and laughing insulting. The vast majority of people who engage in legal hunting activity will also feel that that is deeply inappropriate.”
“I am pointing out how ludicrous the Alliance Party's position is. On the one hand, it is saying that the Bill is necessary to ensure that wildlife can be humanely dispatched, but on the other hand —.”
“However, just as you cannot legislate against a dog's natural instinct to hunt, scent and give chase — the title of the Bill is the Hunting with Dogs Bill — you cannot legislate against other animals, but I have not heard that point being put forward by those who are calling for a ban. Anti-hunting activists talk about the focus on hunting with dogs. An RSPCA wildlife centre study in 2018 suggested that 79·4% of wildlife kills are caused not by dogs, by men or by guns, but by domestic cats. Now, it would be ludicrous of me to advocate that we legislate to ban cats. That would be an absolutely ridiculous position to take.”
“Members, common sense needs to be applied. You cannot legislate against a dog's natural instinct, which is to scent, hunt and give chase. That happens day in, day out. You do not have to be a participant in an organised hunt for that to happen. Under the Bill, however, you run the risk of being criminalised. That point has been made light of by a number of Members. The strict liability included in the Bill means that that is an absolute reality. <BR /> <BR />I said that you cannot legislate against a dog's natural instinct. I have listened to how Members across the House are very keen on animal welfare, biodiversity and ensuring that the protection of wildlife is conducted in a way that meets animal welfare standards.”
“By means of regulation, we could have had significant animal welfare protections that, in effect, squared the circle — which, I believe, the majority of Members agree with — which is the permitting of lawful hunting activity but criminalising any attempt by anyone to cause undue suffering to animals. People will say that that is directly contradictory to any hunting activity, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is required in order to manage the countryside. <BR /> <BR />One of the most alarming aspects of today's Bill is the extraordinary legal risk that it creates for anybody who owns a dog. It is not just about hunting. It is not just about organised country pursuits. This Bill, as drafted, creates a pathway to prosecution for ordinary people whose dogs behave in natural, instinctive ways.”
“The law on animal welfare permitted hunting — those two things can coexist — but also allowed for legal action to be taken against a hunt or an individual if a very specific accusation of causing unnecessary suffering was made. Unfortunately, a subsequent law did not include a similar clause. That, I argue, would have had a significant impact on animal welfare in Northern Ireland while also recognising that legitimate hunting activity is required in order to ensure that we can manage an eco-population. Perhaps, were the Bill sponsor serious about animal welfare and protecting rural ways of life, he could have put forward that position. I remember arguing that very point in 2021. <BR /> <BR />The position at DAERA is now occupied by an Alliance Minister.”
“Yes. Absolutely. I am on record as an advocate for such things, and I know many farmers who have put in place appropriate measures on their farmland to ensure that ground-nesting birds have the best chance of survival. The Member puts forward a very interesting point, because, without man's intervention to control wildlife, we would simply not have some of those endangered species. <BR /> <BR />If animal welfare were our priority, the debate would be about enforcement, education and evidence-based wildlife management, not a blunt, ill-considered ban that criminalises traditional, rural practices and does nothing to protect wildlife. <BR /> <BR />For Members who do not know: in 1972, Stormont passed the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland). It was hailed as landmark legislation at the time.”
“It ignores the peer-reviewed research and a decade of practical evidence. As I noted, it ignores the consequences of similar legislation in England, Wales and Scotland, where bans have not improved animal welfare and, in many cases, have made it worse. Were animal welfare truly our priority, we would be debating investment in enforcement —.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. What pained me most when I listened to an earlier contribution from the Bill sponsor was that he appeared to imply that dogs and their respective owners, be they in pursuit of legitimate hunting activity with guns and dogs —. I think that most people understand that gun activity is often a group activity, in which each individual has their own dog. In most cases, it is a Labrador, springer spaniel or cocker spaniel. Those people have been portrayed today as the impediment to ground-nesting species. Members, be under no illusion: it is the predator fox population and other animals that have a detrimental impact on ground-nesting birds, such as curlew, not those who legitimately partake in hunting activity. <BR /> <BR />The Bill, however, ignores all that.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have listened to Members describe how we are a nation of animal lovers, and, indeed, we are. Our duty, however, extends to productive, sensible and legal intervention when it comes to wildlife. We often pit one against the other when debating the issue. There must be intervention to ensure a healthy, proportionate wildlife ecosystem. If we do not intervene and use the appropriate measures to ensure that we manage wildlife populations effectively, they run out of control. The Bill, however, ignores all that.”
“<BR /> <BR />You would think that, some 20-plus years after a Bill had been introduced in Westminster or Scotland, there would be evidence aplenty of positive animal welfare impacts, but the truth is that there is none. There has been no spend whatsoever from the anti-hunting campaign group to peer review the very ban that they imposed and how it had a positive impact on wildlife. None. Millions of pounds have been spent on propaganda and spin about a rural population that is often scorned by those who have no understanding of the countryside but now are experts. Veterinary experts, wildlife managers and conservation practitioners have repeatedly stated that controlled hunting with dogs is a legitimate and humane wildlife management tool.”
“I will never be found wanting in advancing those arguments because, again, I go back to the basic principles that were instilled in me, which were to represent and respect country ways of life but to ensure that we have adequate animal welfare standards. <BR /> <BR />Supporters of the Bill claim that it is about animal welfare, but all peer-reviewed scientific evidence does not support that claim. I note that, when the Bill sponsor opened today's debate, he could not point to any specific peer-reviewed research or scientific evidence that showed that bans elsewhere on these islands led to better animal welfare for the quarry and mammal population that they seek to protect, and there is a reason for that.”
“I will take no further intervention. The Member will have his opportunity in due course. <BR /> <BR />I will get back to my point: it is not a Bill rooted in evidence, animal welfare or practical wildlife management. It is a Bill rooted in perception, prejudice and pressure from activist groups that neither understand nor represent rural Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Animal welfare has been cited by most Members in their contributions as a key aspect and means that they want to see advanced in Northern Ireland. I do not disagree with that fundamental point. My colleague for North Belfast gave a different perspective, and he outlined some of the animal welfare issues that we are grappling with, whether it is puppy farming, an animal cruelty register or other aspects of a legitimate animal welfare policy.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. While I fundamentally disagree with the Alliance Party's policy position, I find it a bit rich to receive interventions from an individual, that is, the Member for West Belfast from People Before Profit, who literally entered the Chamber a few moments ago instead of sitting and listening to the points being debated across the Chamber.”
“However, from what I have seen today, and from the clause-by-clause analysis by my colleague Paul Frew from North Antrim, I am afraid that my words were misplaced. Let me be absolutely clear from the outset that the Bill is anti-rural in its design, anti-rural in its effect and anti-rural in its understanding of how the countryside works.”
“I thank the Bill sponsor for his intervention. Of course I do not speak for the entirety of the rural community. I do not speak for the entirety of my party. I do not speak for the entirety of Members in the House. Nor does Mr Blair, but it is Mr Blair who has introduced a Bill that will dictate the terms for all of those who participate in hunting. I have not introduced a Bill to put a blanket ban on hunting activity across Northern Ireland. That is what the Bill will achieve, however. <BR /> <BR />When I spoke on a variation of this Bill in 2021, I acknowledged that I did not think that Mr Blair or the Alliance Party had malicious intent or a hidden agenda when it came to hunting activity beyond that which he sought to ban publicly, which was fox hunting.”
“I will in just a moment. <BR /> <BR />Today, I have listened to how Members have degraded and devalued members of the rural community who have participated in lawful hunting activity, all with a genuine and deep sense of value for the land. I have listened to Members demonstrably mischaracterise their activity and their intent. My fear is that, if the Bill should pass, it will do just that. <BR /> <BR />On that note, I will give way to the Bill sponsor.”
“Dogs are among the most appreciative, kind and caring animals; in fact, they are man's best friend, as we have all rightly seen in times past. My father taught me, as his father taught him, to have a deep sense of respect for the rural way of life and how to manage the countryside. That is why I cannot support the Bill's Second Stage today.”
“Today, I speak as an MLA who unashamedly represents a predominantly rural constituency. I speak as someone who has been involved in a rural way of life since my inception, as were my father, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, which is something of which we are extremely proud. I speak as a committed conservationist and as someone who sees and values man and woman's participation in managing our countryside and all that is beautiful in it. I speak as someone with a deep sense of responsibility to the people who depend on our land, our wildlife and our rural traditions for their livelihood and, indeed, way of life. <BR /> <BR />As a boy, I was reared beside dogs. My family have kept dogs all their life.”
“As a point of clarity, will the Member accept that, on the issue of badgers, that is an illegal activity that has no place in society and that the police challenge it robustly, as they should?”