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 4 of 46.
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member made light of some of the contributions from Members from across the House who have legitimate concerns relating to wider hunting activity given the provisions in the Bill. Does he not accept that it would be negligent of us, as a democratically elected Assembly, not to air those concerns and ensure that the unintended consequences that his party colleague Patsy McGlone outlined do not materialise?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It is an important point, but man's intervention, and, indeed, his intervention with a dog, can often prevent the abject cruelty that nature imposes on animals, where a diseased animal can survive for days, in which a prolonged period of cruelty is often inflicted on it.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. That is a really important point. In the Bill sponsor's opening comments, he tried to make it apparent to all who were listening that there is more risk to ground-nesting birds from one or more dogs than from the very population that he seeks to protect. It is clear from any evidence that ground-nesting birds and, indeed, other endangered species on the ground are most at risk from foxes and other predator species, not dogs.”
“I thank the Member. For clarity of the record, the word "pack" is in the Bill at line 35. I will be honest in the debate. I just hope that others will be too.”
“It is one of two things: it is either broad because it does not know what exactly its intent is, or, perhaps, it is more sinister and is designed in such a way as to encapsulate those people.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding by the Member who tabled the Bill? In an earlier comment, he referred to the word "pack" as being in the Bill. No such word appears in the Bill. Does he also agree that it is the broad definition and terms that the Member has outlined, particularly the broad definition of hunting activity, that mean that the very instances that he has outlined will capture a far greater extent, whether that be dog walkers, those who have a gun and a dog or those who have a couple of terriers, springer spaniels or cocker spaniels? It is so vast that they will naturally fall under the catchment of the Bill.”
“Will the Member accept that that is one of the most fundamental misunderstandings of the Bill by the Chair of the Agriculture Committee? The game on the menu, in this instance, is not killed by the dog; the dog is part of the pursuit and part of the search. Under the Bill, those involved are liable for prosecution for hunting a mammal.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I will try not to do one back at particular narratives, but will the Member acknowledge that the vast majority of individuals who engage in lawful hunting activity do so with the consent of the landowner — often multiple landowners — and, where some fall foul of that, the farmer or individual has the ability to take them before the courts for trespassing on ground on which they had no permission to be?”
“I thank the Member for illustrating that point, because it is sometimes lost. Does he agree that man cannot abstract himself from proper and effective management of the countryside and biodiversity? If he comes up against such realities, his claim to be acting in the interests of animal welfare goes out the window.”
“I thank the Chair for giving way. He said that the Bill sponsor said that the Bill will have no impact on those of a shooting persuasion in Northern Ireland. Does he agree with me that that is potentially misleading, because, where gun owners engage in legal hunting activity with dogs such as with a springer spaniel or a cocker spaniel, they could fall foul of the legislation?”
“I thank the Member for giving away. Can the Member outline to the House what percentage of the Northern Ireland population his consultation constitutes? How many people from outside Northern Ireland's jurisdiction filled in the consultation?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member said that the objective is animal welfare. In keeping with that theme, can he point to any demonstrable facts and evidence that substantiate that argument when it comes to wildlife management in the countryside?”
“The punishment no longer fits the crime. It is high time that society got tough on crime and ensured that victims are centred in all of our approach.”
“What does it say when victims go through trials dealing with some of the most hideous crimes, yet the system is lenient on the offenders and puts their needs, cares and wants before those of victims? <BR /> <BR />Why does that matter in this House? It matters because there is an attempt in the House to raise the level of criminal responsibility from what it currently is — 10 years of age — to the age of 14, which is what some in the Department of Justice propose. Under that proposal, one of those boys would not have faced any form of judgement. It is despicable in the extreme. <BR /> <BR />What message does that send to the rapist? What punishment, in this case, was there? There was no punishment. It is a prime example of the lenient sentencing that continues to dominate our judicial system. Our prisons are no longer a place to be feared.”
“This morning, there is a sense of seething anger in our communities as they continue to digest the news of the lenient sentence that three boys in England — two were 14 years of age and one was 13 — received for the act of rape. They lured two young girls — a 15-year-old and a 14-year-old — to a location in Hampshire in England and raped them, videoed it, taunted them and put the video on social media for the world to see. In an act of sadistic cruelty that falls so far short of what anybody should expect from our justice system, those three individuals, when they came before the court, were spared jail and given youth rehabilitation orders. What does that say about the British justice system? What does it say to the victims of rape across the country?”
“It is time that the Irish Government delivered.”
“There should be no preconditions for handing over documents, cooperating, investigating collusion or opening the books on Omagh, Kingsmills and multiple other murders. <BR /> <BR />Victims deserve truth.”
“When it came to ordinary criminals, the door swung open. What message did that send to the families of victims such as Buchanan and Breen? What message did it give to the Provisional IRA? To continue to operate with impunity? <BR /> <BR />Let us be honest: the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has lost the confidence of victims, survivors and veterans. It has lost the confidence of this community, and it has lost the confidence of this House. I say to the UK Government that it should be withdrawn: not amended but withdrawn. I say this to the UK Government: grow a backbone, get off your knees and stand up for your citizens. There should be no preconditions for the Irish Government doing what is morally and legally required.”
“I will come on to that point. If the Member recognises the truth in the motion, however, I urge Alliance to support it. <BR /> <BR />Much has been said about the UK's article 2 obligations, but almost nothing has been said about the Irish Government's obligations under the same provision. European case law is clear: if a state harbours an alleged perpetrator or holds relevant evidence, it must investigate. If a victim was under the authority or control of another state, it must investigate. By any reasonable measure, Dublin has been in breach of its article 2 obligations for decades. Between 1973 and 1997, the UK made 113 extradition requests to the Republic for terrorist offences. Only eight were granted. For non-terrorist offences, 296 requests were made, of which 124 were granted. When it came to terrorists, the door was bolted.”
“In a display of staggering hypocrisy, however, the Irish Government have taken the UK Government to court over legacy matters. That could not be further from the truth. They have kept their interstate case alive. They have applied political pressure on the Secretary of State. They have demanded changes to UK legislation that go way beyond those required by even the Supreme Court, all whilst refusing to meet their own obligations, refusing to hand over documents, refusing to cooperate with the ICRIR and refusing to investigate their own failures. That is not moral leadership. It is political theatre at the expense of victims.”
“I will in a moment if I have time. <BR /> <BR />Throughout the Troubles, terrorists crossed the border after committing murder and found refuge. Bomb factories operated in the Republic, explosives were transported north and warnings were ignored. It has been mentioned on several occasions that recent information shows that a company in the Republic, Irish Industrial Explosives Ltd in County Meath, was an explosives bonanza for republican terrorists. Despite repeated warnings from the British state about the level of explosives that were being found on traces of bombs across our country, what did the Irish Government do? They sent their Ministers to laud and to promote that very company, yet there was further silence. The Irish state was not a passive observer; it had responsibilities that it failed to meet.”
“Smithwick should have been the start of a full reckoning. Instead, what did we find? Dublin treated it as an inconvenience to be buried. Recommendation 7, which called for further investigation, was ignored. The families of Breen and Buchanan have been left with unanswered questions and unhealed wounds. Throughout the Troubles, terrorists crossed the border after committing murder —.”
“Let us remember Kingsmills, where 10 innocent workmen were lined up and executed in cold blood. Why? Because of their religion. Irish intelligence had given information about IRA activity in the area. It had knowledge of explosives being manufactured in its jurisdiction, yet nothing was done to prevent their slaughter. The families of Kingsmills — I count Alan Black a personal friend — have waited nearly 50 years for answers. Dublin has offered nothing. <BR /> <BR />We must also speak of the two brave RUC officers, Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan, who were lured to their death in the Irish Republic. The Smithwick tribunal, after years of evidence, concluded that there was collusion; that sensitive information was passed to the Provisional IRA; and that those officers were set up.”
“<BR /> <BR />Eóin Tennyson of the Alliance Party has rubbished the motion. He has rubbished this aspect of legacy and walked over the rights and the experiences of the many victims who are still calling for the truth. Let me remind him why it is important to debate this today. A word was spoken that had not been spoken until the previous Member who spoke said it. Let us remember Omagh, the single worst atrocity of the Troubles, with a bomb planned and constructed in and transported from the Republic of Ireland. Four years ago, the courts called for a public inquiry into the Irish state's role. Four years, and Dublin has done absolutely nothing. No inquiry, no transparency and no willingness to open the books. Victims' families are left to wonder what is being hidden. Why the silence?”
“I suppose that we should not be shocked by that, given its history. Gerry Kelly MLA sits in the Chamber right now. How many nights did he spend on the run in the Republic of Ireland? He is perhaps the only Member of this elected body who actively participated in shooting a member of the Prison Service in the head, yet we are subjected to lectures that we all have got this badly wrong. <BR /> <BR />For decades, victims have wanted the truth. They have waited for justice, and they have waited for even the smallest sign of compassion from Dublin. Instead, they have been met with silence, with obstruction and with a cold, calculated refusal to cooperate. That is not an administrative delay; it is a political decision, one that deepens and prolongs wounds and trauma. There are many reasons why that is a scandalous position.”
“<BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin could paper the walls of the Chamber with its many comments about targeting the British state and the security forces and celebrating cowardly terrorist colleagues. However, it has not proposed a single motion calling for action from the Republic of Ireland's Government.”
“Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The DUP motion before us today confronts a shameful truth that victims have often carried for too long by themselves. It is a truth that the Irish Government have refused to face, acknowledge and act on. We in the Chamber should be in no doubt: the blame for thousands of lives destroyed during the Troubles rests squarely with the terrorists — those who planted bombs, pulled triggers and left families shattered. They are celebrated and applauded to this day by many Members on the Benches opposite. <BR /> <BR />Today, however, our focus is on something different: the Irish Government's decades-long refusal to confront their failures, responsibilities and role in the suffering of innocent people in Northern Ireland. Victims have been ignored, and trauma has been prolonged.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He mentions Kingsmills. Today, we have been lectured by Sinn Féin about those parties that need to demonstrate accountability. Does he agree that there was no such accountability from Sinn Féin when it refused to cooperate with, and respond to, the very inquiry into Kingsmills?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. There are many strands of our troubled past, and there are many people who need to be held to account. This motion focused on the role of the Irish Government; to date, they have been found wanting.”
“Does the Member agree that it was not just British citizens who felt the cold hand of terrorism during the Troubles in Northern Ireland but many Irish citizens, including some who lived in the Republic of Ireland?”
“I would expect, wholly, that, at a time of energy crisis, you, as Minister, would look proactively at any potential option that has the ability to reduce energy costs for businesses and consumers who, in Northern Ireland, continue to pay some of the highest energy costs anywhere in Europe. Evidence suggests that re-coupling with the GB market would result in a 10% reduction in energy bills for consumers and businesses in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Will you commit to bringing forward a paper to the Executive that sets out the economic benefits, legal obstacles and timescales for any future discussions?”
“Marie Anderson used her role to discredit the RUC. In the findings yesterday, it is her role that has been discredited. It is the role of the ombudsman that has been discredited for vindictive, partisan actions. It should perhaps come as no surprise because we recently found out that Marie Anderson did not even pass the vetting test to be in the office. <BR /> <BR />The role of the Police Ombudsman is of significant importance. I hope that the House will bear that in mind when it comes to the appointment of any subsequent ombudsman, who must hold that role with fairness and transparency and ensure that it is about truth.”
“Those brave men and women evacuated children, men and women from their homes when they were being targeted by sectarian murder gangs. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to those brave men and women. Yet how do we serve them as a country? With an ombudsman who was in place to join in with the rewriting of the narrative of the past. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin could absolutely paper the walls of this place with its calls for accountability when it comes to the RUC and, indeed, the British Army, but there were no such calls for accountability and action upon the murderous actions of its sister organisation, the Provisional IRA. Some 1,700 men, women and children were killed by that organisation. The First Minister for all says that there was no alternative: no alternative to the Enniskillen bombing, no alternative to other IRA atrocities.”
“The High Court ruling that the former Police Ombudsman, Marie Anderson, acted beyond her legal powers in making the claim and findings of collusive behaviour against the RUC is significant and welcome. However, let us be straight: it should never have happened in the first place. It is one of the most significant oversight bodies in Northern Ireland, weaponised and designed to deliver a vindictive smear against an organisation that served with distinction in Northern Ireland. I could not be more proud of the service of the thousands of RUC officers who, when cowardly terrorists were running away from planted bombs, ran towards them — those brave officers, men and women. Those brave men and women lifted the body parts of civilians off our streets.”
“My reading and understanding of Standing Orders is that — I actually fell foul of this rule — when one Member allows an intervention, the Member making that intervention can talk for whatever his permitted time is. It is not for the other Member to dictate how long that is.”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I certainly would support Nigel Farage over a Zack Polanski who believes that women can be hypnotised into growing their breasts. I would like to see a UK Government who reward hard work, secure their borders and are bedded in common sense. The SDLP falls far short —.”
“The Member will know that I am certainly no advocate of a united Ireland, but will he himself elaborate on what issue he has with the words "carefully managed"?”
“The Member and I agree on many issues. He knows full well my position on the Windsor framework and other accords. Does he also acknowledge that he needs to be careful what he wishes for? Some of the candidates whom his party endorsed and supported signed and voted for the Windsor framework and its predecessor, the Northern Ireland protocol, whilst they were Members of the European Parliament.”
“I thank the Member. He is using the term "mystic": perhaps they will make good bedfellows for the hypnotist-in-chief, Mr Zack Polanski.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. She stated that "this state", as she calls it, has not delivered for any of the people whom we represent. Does she include her party's Ministers in that? Have they not delivered for the people whom they represent?”
“Those are not extreme positions — far from it — but common-sense positions that are a direct reflection of the lived experience of many millions across Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and, indeed, England, so I ask the SDLP to spare us the melodrama. It is a tale as old as time: when mainstream parties ignore legitimate concerns, voters will naturally look elsewhere. Rather than engage in distraction politics and in condemning the electorate, Members should perhaps reflect on why so many people are fleeing from their left-wing lunacy towards policies of common sense. We can then perhaps get on with the job of government.”
“Growth and a new era. What did it get? Higher taxation, low growth, open borders and Ministers who think that men can be women, as though those are things to be celebrated. <BR /> <BR />The motion fundamentally misses the point. Voters are not to be lectured about their concerns. They have not been hoodwinked. They are not too stupid to know what they are voting for or, in the SDLP's case, what they are not voting for. They know very well. They are expressing their frustration at successive Governments who have failed to secure our borders, failed to tackle illegal immigration, failed to support working families from being taxed to death and failed to stand up for farmers.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />What therefore is the answer from the SDLP, apart from shouting from the sidelines? It is not to fix any of the problems but to call for a divisive border poll. Let me be clear: a single road or a single home will not be built and a single opportunity will not be given to a family here by getting rid of Northern Ireland. Rather, Northern Ireland will be fixed through fixing the policies that are holding it back. Before lecturing about populism, the House should start delivering for the people whom it serves. Less ideology and more delivery: that is what Northern Ireland needs. The SDLP appears to be fixated on causing chaos and distraction today. It is the party that left its seats in the House of Commons to go and sit on the knee of Keir Starmer. What did it promise us?”
“The allegations from the Member are clear, but what is the answer from the SDLP?”
“— spare us the left-wing claptrap in the Chamber.”
“— are clearly the ones who object to it with their net zero madness, so —”
“The Member talks often about the A5 in this place, yet he and Members from his party —”
“— have resulted in low growth and in the building of roads being halted.”
“I say this to the SDLP: talk is cheap. It takes money to buy bread. The policies in which the Member's party have engaged —”