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 7 of 46.
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member cannot accuse Members on this Bench of having a go at him and his party when he has had a go at everybody else the whole way through this contribution.”
“Your reaction says it all. It was a sincere question.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. In opening the debate, he said that this is the least important thing that we will discuss today. That is true. It is factual. I ask this of the Member sincerely, however: how would he be responding if it were the DUP that had tabled the motion? Would he have called it childish? Would he have called it tinkering? Would he have called it a distraction from the serious issues of today? I guarantee that the Member would not be taking the position that he is adopting now if the DUP had tabled the motion.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Whilst that was a reflection on what I said, what I meant was my community. The Member cannot say with a straight face that the release of terrorists onto the streets did not retraumatise victims and that the disbandment of an organisation that lost hundreds of officers at the hands of paramilitaries was not a serious issue for my community.”
“Will the Member outline how many times in this mandate his vote has not counted?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that one of the main beneficiaries of the current system is the Alliance Party? No Alliance Members are in the Chamber to discuss the issue. Under that very agreement, the Alliance Party has seen over-representation in the Executive, so to throw the toys out of the pram about the areas that do not suit it is ironic to say the least.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. For fear of misrepresenting Baroness Foster, she did not offer an opinion on whether she was for or against; she reiterated that it was cosmetic. The focus of the motion has been about how this removes the ability for parties to say, "Vote for us or get them." Does the Member not accept that, in every Government and every political party around the world, that is exactly what is done? They want to replace the people who are in power. With that in mind, will the Member explain why the SDLP did not hold fire with a motion like this until we see the results of a current AERC investigation and Committee report that will, ultimately, talk about a lot of the issues?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I hope that I am not misrepresenting him when I say that he talks about a return to the factory settings of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and, indeed, the consensus that it indicated. Will he agree that there was no consensus for the widespread release of terrorist prisoners back into the very communities of people whom they had terrorised? That is fundamental. The Belfast Agreement did not deliver the equilibrium for me or, indeed, my community that some in the House claim it did.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. At one of the presentations to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, there was a suggestion — it was, I think, made seriously, but some thought it in jest — that there should be a third officeholder, namely for the Alliance Party. That received some support from that party's member on the Committee. Is it the Alliance Party's official position that there should be three in office rather than two? How would that lead to effective and efficient government?”
“Vital safeguards should remain. <BR /> <BR />Unionism will not be lectured on what should be removed to best advance nationalism. It was OK for provisions to be contained in agreements when it suited nationalism. On the Member's closing point about the Belfast Agreement, I did not support anything that released prisoners onto our streets or led to the disbandment of the RUC.”
“The Member makes a vital point. We saw the heartache and instability that was created when certain parties and other institutions, such as the Irish Government, the British Government and the European Union, attempted to remove cross-community consent from a vote in the Chamber to advance their own ends. You have to think about this. Have you ever given thought to the fact that fundamental reform that you may see as being in the best interests of this place for stability might actually cause long-term instability? That is a fundamental point that, time and time again, a lot of Members miss. The devolved institutions in this Province will only succeed if they command broad support from across the political spectrum. Unionism and nationalism are fundamental. They account for significant swathes — the vast majority — of the Chamber.”
“We need to see good government and a spirit that ensures that the institutions can work to their best for all our people, but there is a crusade by the SDLP leader — sorry, the leader of the Opposition; he may be leader some day — and the Alliance Party to try to drag the Assembly into positions on non-binding motions to influence the work of the Committee. <BR /> <BR />The Committee will produce a report. It may or may not contain recommendations that the entire Assembly can buy into, but that is where the work should be carried out. I say very clearly that it would be a grave mistake to believe that institutional change can be railroaded through at the expense of one side.”
“It has been mentioned before by Sinn Féin and others that the fact remains that fundamental reform requires buy-in from political parties that make up the Chamber. You cannot get away from that fact. To do so is delusional in the extreme. Whatever fundamental reform you go through, if a party in the Chamber decides that it no longer wants to partake in these institutions because it feels that continuing to do so is demonstrably against its interests and those of the electorate that it represents, it can walk away, no matter what the institutions are reformed to say. That is factual. Then we have a secondary question to that: if the largest party in unionism or nationalism chose to do so, would this place have democratic legitimacy? That is a fact that many Members cannot get their heads around.”
“That gets to the heart of what the SDLP is trying to achieve with reform. It is not, as the SDLP proclaims, about better or more accountable government but about electoral advantage. I understand that the St Andrews Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement or Belfast Agreement — whatever you want to call it — have not served the SDLP well. That party has been reduced in every election to this place to such an extent that voters have now put it into opposition. I understand its desire to see changes to the institutions that have not suited its style of politics. However, time and time again, we see one-upmanship by the SDLP and Alliance when they jump ahead of the very Committee that was set up to look at where accommodation can be found and some of the outstanding issues can be progressed.”
“If that had not been the case, we would have had no need for the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, the St Andrews Agreement or the previous agreements that failed. That is fundamentally factual. When we debate such issues, we should do so with that firmly in our minds. <BR /> <BR />The final six words of the Opposition motion are:”
“Perhaps I should leave a bit of time for the leader of the Opposition to regain his normally pale complexion. It went the colour of his hair for a brief moment during the debate. <BR /> <BR />For many in the Chamber, "fundamental reform" has become a buzzword. It has become a buzzword for many within nationalism and, indeed, for the Alliance Party. However, it is often associated with a degree of chronological snobbery. The issue, for which many Members in the House will not account directly, is that there are fundamental differences in our society. There is a fundamental difference in constitutional outlooks and in how people in the House view social issues. I could go on. Therefore, there will always be the need for institutions that reflect and balance the composition of political thought in Northern Ireland. That is a fact.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. There has been a complete load of nonsense from "Media Matt" when it comes to his interpretation, because the AERC is formatted to produce a report. Going outside the Chamber to try to get his media lines does nothing for the conducive work that the Committee is meant to be doing.”
“It shocked the community and was a stark reminder that those who are intent on carrying out political violence still exist in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Today, in my constituency, we remember another local man who lost his life while serving others. Lance Corporal Stephen McKee, from Banbridge, a soldier with the First Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, was killed in Afghanistan on 9 March 2011. Like Constable Carroll, he was serving with courage and dedication when his life was taken by cowardly terrorists. <BR /> <BR />Both men served others, both men represented the best of our community and both their families paid the highest price. As we mark the day of remembrance, we must honour the memory of all victims of terrorism.”
“Seventeen years ago, on 9 March 2009, Constable Stephen Carroll was murdered by republican terrorists whilst responding to an emergency call in Lurgan. Constable Carroll served in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, carrying on his proud legacy of service with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He was a dedicated officer and a husband and father. He put on the uniform to protect the public and uphold the rule of law. Instead of returning home to his family that evening, he was brutally taken by those who sought to drag Northern Ireland back to darker days. <BR /> <BR />I remember that killing, as do so many people of my age: a constable — a police officer — who had served so well, taken in the prime of his life.”
“This week, we will mark European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism. Any Member who took the time to be in the Senate Chamber in the past two hours heard at first hand the carnage, hurt and destruction that terrorism has wreaked on so many lives in Northern Ireland and further afield. Regardless of paramilitary affiliation, terrorism has caused a stain on our society and broken the heart of many families. It is a day to remember those whose lives were cruelly taken by acts of terror and to reflect on the duty that we share to support innocent victims and stand firmly against those who seek to impose their will through violence. <BR /> <BR />Terrorism leaves a trail of destruction. For my constituency, today's date carries particular, solemn significance.”
“Let us be honest, Minister: the Northern Ireland Climate Change Act in its current form has been an unmitigated disaster for infrastructure in Northern Ireland. The A5 is in court with over £100 million spent and not a single piece of tar laid; the A4 Enniskillen bypass is on hold; and the A1 upgrade is delayed again. Will the Minister commit to looking at fundamental reform of the Climate Change Act to deliver infrastructure projects? Will she agree that, the next time a bandwagon comes along, perhaps some people in the House will consider where it is going before they jump on it?”
“We are right to focus our attention on NI Water's pollution of our waterways, but let us be honest: there are blatant double standards, and the statement does not create a level playing field. The double fining of farmers, for example, which was introduced by the Minister, means that they will be penalised twice in comparison with NI Water. <BR /> <BR />Whilst we are on the topic of double standards, Minister, I am sure that you are aware of a news report over the weekend that showed injured animals, slurry being blown over hedges and flooded slurry yards at one of your arm's-length bodies, AFBI. Minister, why are the rules for you and your Department different from those for farmers?”
“The Minister's statement referred to the impact of generative AI on our education system by and large, but particularly, in this instance, on examinations. Has the Minister had any feedback from school leaders, examination bodies and, indeed, his Department about how, potentially, generative AI has contaminated the examination process?”
“The ministerial code talks about the seven principles of public life, which include showing selflessness by acting in the public interest, showing objectivity by basing decisions on merit and evidence and showing leadership. It is a ministerial code that does not apply to the Sinn Féin First Minister, however. It is beyond ridiculous. Sinn Féin's Michelle O'Neill often claims to be the "First Minister for all". On this occasion, she appears to be the First Minister for nobody.”
“Regardless of Members' political views on the situation in Iran, it is incumbent on all Ministers to act in a way that is responsible and that shows leadership. The First Minister has not done so. She has walked away while hundreds of Northern Ireland citizens — those with a British passport and, indeed, those with an Irish passport — are stranded across the Middle East, anxious to get home to their families. Meanwhile, for the sake of political point-scoring and because of a selfish, narrow, ideological viewpoint, the First Minister, Sinn Féin's Michelle O'Neill, is again missing from action. <BR /> <BR />When Ministers take their place in the House, they sign the Pledge of Office. One of the pillars of the Pledge of Office is:”
“Over the years, this place has seen some very silly actions, some very callous actions and some selfish actions. However, the fact that, as we have heard in the last two days, the First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, has on not one but two occasions refused to attend Cabinet Office briefings on the situation in the Middle East is reckless and dangerous in the extreme.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I also thank her for recognising some of the challenges and difficulties caused by the Windsor framework. Can the Member outline the changes that the Irish EU presidency and, indeed, the Irish Government could adopt to solve that problem?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned the West and Europe being engaged in warmongering, particularly in recent days over Iran. However, does the Member consider the actions of the Iranian regime, which recently slaughtered 40,000 of its own people and has sponsored global terror proxies across the Middle East and indeed the world? Does he class that as warmongering?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the actions of the Irish Government, propped up by the SDLP, Sinn Féin and, indeed, the Alliance Party, should give no succour to anybody in Northern Ireland, including unionists in the House, that they would ever act in our strategic national interest?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. We have heard much from the Sinn Féin Benches about Members' disappointment that the debate is now focusing on defence. However, although they want us to believe that the focus of the motion is on mutual interest, funding and engagement, there is no similar disappointment about the clear call for constitutional change included in the motion, which, evidently, will be divisive in the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. As someone who has had the burden of sitting on the Winter Framework Committee with him since its inception, will he agree with me that it is a case of our needing less EU interference rather than more?”
“The inclusion of the Irish Government, and, indeed, the acceptance of that in this place, will not solve that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Can Mr O'Toole tell me whether the Irish Government, when they have the presidency, will attempt to remove the friction between and barriers to GB and NI trade, stop the EU laws that apply to Northern Ireland that have a huge impact on our businesses, and call for the removal of the Irish Sea border, which undermines UK integrity? Businesses face red tape.”
“As was outlined by Mrs Dodds in her contribution, we have seen that even in recent times. The UK Government introduced a review of the Windsor framework following a democratic vote in this place that stripped out the principle of cross-community voting. The review involved Lord Murphy's speaking with local representatives and the UK Government to see whether there was a way of issuing some form of recourse through the existing structures. What happened? The EU refused to engage. Is that the model by which a country that has the EU presidency will conduct itself in relation to Northern Ireland?”
“The Member is absolutely right. That, again, goes to the very heart of why we must reiterate that having the presidency of the Council does not mean that the Irish Government have a remit to interfere in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, and they should not be given cover by leave of a motion from the SDLP to do so. We assert that very clearly. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland has been treated appallingly throughout the process. I say very clearly that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, our primary engagement on international and EU matters is with our sovereign Government at Westminster — I admit that they have served those of us on these Benches very badly — not through Dublin, as the intermediary. That should be clear.”
“On that point, I will give way to the Member.”
“As was mentioned, when my colleague Mrs Dodds was in the European Parliament, she engaged continually throughout the process in order for the European Union and, indeed, the Irish Government to understand the constitutional norms and the principle of consent. That was disregarded at every opportunity.”
“The Member could have left out that part of the motion, but such was his desire to use the means of the Irish presidency of the Council of the European Union to advocate for Irish unity, he included it. It is clear to everybody what that is designed to do. <BR /> <BR />The DUP wishes the Republic of Ireland Government every success in holding the presidency of the Council of the European Union. However, as I have outlined, throughout the Brexit process, the Irish Government acted in a hugely hostile way towards Northern Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. There can be no doubt about that.”
“I will, because the Member gave way to me.”
“Those of us on these Benches know exactly what "a new Ireland" means. It has been quite adequately outlined by the Sinn Féin Member who spoke. It means constitutional change, and breaking up the United Kingdom. It disregards the principle of consent and constitutional norms by advocating for constitutional change, and it was directly reflected in the way in which the Irish Government behaved throughout the entire Brexit process.”
“That is why it will be interesting to see whether the Alliance Party is prepared to support the motion, which makes it clear that Northern Ireland's future will be best served back in Europe as part of a new Ireland.”
“This is another motion that rehashes the Brexit debate. Whenever the issue comes to the House, we are often accused by nationalist parties in particular, and by Alliance, of being negative, backward and against growth. In the debate on this issue today, however, when the motion has been tabled by the SDLP, it is framed through the lens of the opportunity of constitutional change and therefore thought to be something that we should all automatically get behind. I will be very clear that the Democratic Unionist Party will oppose the motion and that it will do so for good reason. The motion is not one of strategic thought; it is about political point-scoring. It is clear that the motion, in any of its forms, is not only anti-constitutional but deliberately designed to be divisive.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. How does the Member react to unionists' opinion that the Republic of Ireland's conduct throughout the Brexit process would really bode well for them thinking and acting in the strategic interests of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom?”
“Perhaps it is time for that interpretation to be assigned to the same dustbin.”
“The PM continues to hide behind a maximalist interpretation of international law that is becoming an embarrassment and is a threat to our effective security at home and abroad. It is a UK interpretation of international law that prevents the Royal Navy from protecting our shores from those arriving on small boats, prevents us from deporting foreign criminals, paedophiles and rapists and continues to leave our citizens under threat.”
“The current position that UK bases will be used is welcome — indeed, it is — but I fear that the dithering to get to that position has caused the UK harm.”
“That is domestic: when we look internationally, we see how Iran under the regime led by the ayatollah has had disastrous impacts globally through its sponsorship of proxy terror organisations across the world such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Houthis, Shia militants; I could go on. Look at Iran supplying Russia with over 50,000 drones for use against the Ukrainian people. That is the head of the snake, and I, for one, believe that the world is a safer place with him not in it. <BR /> <BR />That said, I recognise the huge concern across the Middle East and, indeed, the world for those who have been caught up in the conflict, whether on travel or otherwise. The UK Government's first duty should be to protect our citizens and, indeed, our military bases and armed forces.”
“On Saturday, the world was liberated from a dictator and head of global terrorism: the Iranian supreme leader. There should be no tears shed over his taking out. There should be no tears shed for others in his regime who, over decades of oppression, systematically destroyed family after family not only in Iran but across the world. <BR /> <BR />On the domestic front, that regime, just a number of months ago, was responsible for up to 40,000 of its citizens being killed on the streets of Iran as they protested for freedom. In 2022, it murdered thousands of women who protested for life and freedom after the murder of one of its citizens.”
“Minister, I largely agree with the local economic partnership approach. In many ways, councils are best able to tap into a rich vein of local entrepreneurship and thriving local business. As the Member for East Antrim said, however, there is a feeling that strategies are taking precedence over delivery. Will the Minister confirm that none of the £45 million that was ring-fenced for local economic partnerships has been spent?”
“— costs jobs and reputation to the Northern Ireland economy. We will proudly stand up for Northern Ireland's interests.”