John Blair
South Antrim · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“It supports the Department's role in enforcement by ensuring that animal welfare standards are being upheld. At their core, the regulations are based on prevention, accountability and transparency.”
“I, like others, rise as a member of the AERA Committee in support of the regulations, which seek to make CCTV mandatory in our slaughterhouses. I do not intend to repeat all of the relevant points that have been covered by the Committee Chair and Committee colleagues.”
“<BR /> <BR />I recognise the work of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir, who is using the powers within his remit to help mitigate climate change.”
“I rise as chair of the all-party group on climate action to address the extreme heatwave that is forecast to hit mainland UK, including a rare red weather warning, with temperatures forecast to be as high as 40°C. It is yet another reminder that climate change is not a distant future risk that we can brush under the carpet.”
“They place pressure on our health service, disrupt transport and infrastructure, reduce productivity and threaten food production, water supplies and biodiversity. If such events continue to grow in severity and frequency, the cost to our communities, our local economy and our natural environment will only rise.”
“I thank the member of the Commission for that reply. It is good to hear that those reviews take place, of course. However, further to the information that was presented, will there be an ongoing review of the continuous improvement plan, and will that information be available to Members?”
The complete record
Every one of 1,399 lines we hold for John Blair, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 28.
“I am pleased to support the regulations, and I urge colleagues to do so too.”
“It supports the Department's role in enforcement by ensuring that animal welfare standards are being upheld. At their core, the regulations are based on prevention, accountability and transparency. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, the regulations will enable our agri-food sector to demonstrate high standards of animal welfare from farm to fork, which is increasingly important to consumers, retailers and export markets. Mandatory CCTV gives additional confidence that Northern Ireland is continuing to move in the same direction as other countries across the globe. <BR /> <BR />I commend the Minister — my colleague — for bringing forward the regulations as part of his wider animal welfare pathway. They will continue to ensure that Northern Ireland is firmly on the side of high welfare standards.”
“I, like others, rise as a member of the AERA Committee in support of the regulations, which seek to make CCTV mandatory in our slaughterhouses. I do not intend to repeat all of the relevant points that have been covered by the Committee Chair and Committee colleagues. <BR /> <BR />The regulations are a pillar in Minister Muir's wider animal welfare pathway. The Minister has made it clear that that pathway is about making our current animal welfare legislation more robust by raising standards, building public confidence and supporting a more humane agri-food sector. That is central to public trust and market access. Mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses provides monitoring of what happens in those parts of the process that the public do not see but, nevertheless, care about.”
“I thank the member of the Commission for that reply. It is good to hear that those reviews take place, of course. However, further to the information that was presented, will there be an ongoing review of the continuous improvement plan, and will that information be available to Members?”
“<BR /> <BR />I recognise the work of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir, who is using the powers within his remit to help mitigate climate change. That includes supporting policies to reduce emissions from agriculture and land use, as well as wider work to protect and restore our natural environment. He is also engaging across sectors, including at the Met Office event that I have just referenced. Alliance will continue to support ambitious, evidence-based climate action, but meeting that challenge will require the support of all parties. I therefore call on all parties in the House to support Minister Muir in his efforts to back meaningful climate action and to recognise that the extreme heat that we will witness in the coming days is part of a much bigger and more urgent challenge.”
“They place pressure on our health service, disrupt transport and infrastructure, reduce productivity and threaten food production, water supplies and biodiversity. If such events continue to grow in severity and frequency, the cost to our communities, our local economy and our natural environment will only rise. <BR /> <BR />Only two weeks ago, the Met Office hosted an event in the Building to discuss climate change impacts. It delivered a clear message that the UK's climate is considerably warmer now than in past decades, with extreme heat becoming more likely as global temperatures rise. That is why climate action cannot continue to be treated as optional or as a side issue. It must be central to everything that we do and all policy that we make.”
“I rise as chair of the all-party group on climate action to address the extreme heatwave that is forecast to hit mainland UK, including a rare red weather warning, with temperatures forecast to be as high as 40°C. It is yet another reminder that climate change is not a distant future risk that we can brush under the carpet. Extreme weather is becoming more frequent, more intense and more disruptive. Heatwaves, flooding, storms, droughts and wildfires are increasingly becoming part of our new normal. <BR /> <BR />While we may, of course, be glad to see a bit of extra sunshine once in a while, the consequences of repeated and intensifying heat are serious. Heatwaves affect public health, particularly for older people, young children and those with underlying conditions.”
“I thank the First Minister for that reply and join her in the condemnation of racism. <BR /> <BR />I ask the First Minister for any available update on how action on race relations can be delivered with consistency across council areas, if councils are to be involved. It appears that there has not always been consistency in the application of good relations policy, particularly in reaching our new communities.”
“We must continue to focus on the fact that this is an Executive Bill coming through with cross-party support at that stage; that there was no dissention at the AERA Committee, which examined it in detail for a considerable period; and that there is an overwhelming need to address dilapidation and dereliction in our high streets and hamlets. For those reasons, I look forward to the Bill's continued progress through the House, and I look forward to working with others on delivering it.”
“<BR /> <BR />The remaining two amendments tabled by Mr McCrossan are consequential to the two amendments that have already been addressed. They are dependent on the earlier proposals. The same concerns apply, and therefore Alliance does not intend to support them at this stage. <BR /> <BR />I will conclude with a few points. The underlying aim of the Bill is to give councils practical powers to deal with dilapidation proportionately and flexibly. We should be careful not to undermine that objective by layering new statutory duties upon our district councils that would add complexity and cost and, potentially, create duplication without adding any significant benefits to tackling the issues caused by derelict buildings. <BR /> <BR />Despite the last-minute reservations that Sinn Féin have expressed today, our focus is on the right issues.”
“Departmental officials have been clear from the outset that the Bill should not impose additional statutory duties on district councils. That amendment and, indeed, the previous one would do just that. The Minister spoke only yesterday at Question Time and again in the debate today about the discretionary nature of the Bill to assist local councils in dealing with dilapidation and dereliction. The amendment would add a burden and a commitment. Ultimately, the legislation is intended to give councils more effective powers, not to burden them with additional layers of reporting that may have limited practical value. If councils wish to keep records, that should be a matter for local judgement rather than a statutory requirement.”
“The first of Mr McCrossan's amendments would place a statutory duty on the Department to appoint a person or body to carry out periodic reviews of dilapidated buildings and related matters. While I can fully appreciate the logic behind that amendment, Alliance believes that the most appropriate body to assess the level of dilapidation in any area is the district council. Given the way that the amendment is framed, it would also come at a significant cost to the public purse and would not therefore represent good value for money. Furthermore, amendment No 34 would require district councils to:”
“That included input from key stakeholders. I hope they feel that their views have been heard up to this point and, where possible, that those views have been addressed. <BR /> <BR />To reflect the improvement and refinement of the Bill as it works its way through the Assembly's legislative process, a number of amendments have been tabled by my Alliance colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and Alliance supports those amendments. They are technical in nature and, therefore, sensible, constructive and consistent with the purpose of the Bill, which I outlined when I started. <BR /> <BR />There are also amendments tabled by Mr McCrossan, and I want to be clear about the stance that Alliance will take on those.”
“I rise as Alliance spokesperson on DAERA and as a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. At the outset, I again express the Alliance Party's support for the Bill. It is long-awaited and crucial legislation that would empower our district councils with the necessary tools to address the pressing issue of dilapidated and dangerous buildings in our town centres, villages and wider communities. Those properties are not only eyesores for the local community but decrease property values, pose health and safety risks and have a harmful impact on the wider environment. <BR /> <BR />I wish to take a moment to acknowledge the work of the Minister and his officials in bringing forward the Bill. The legislation has been improved through the Committee scrutiny process, and we have heard some mention of that already.”
“I really appreciate the Member's giving way again. I ask this — again, not to be mischievous but in order for us all to be clear — does the Member accept that central government per se does not have responsibility for dilapidation, that the responsibility lies with the owner and therefore that it is not representative to infer that the Bill will transfer responsibility from central government to local government? Central government is not responsible, and local government will not become responsible, for a property. The responsibility for dilapidation will sit with the owner, as it does currently.”
“I thank the Member for giving way, which I really appreciate. I want to ask this question in a constructive way so that we can look at the issues as a whole. Noting all the issues around cost recovery and the practical difficulties that the Member listed, does she accept that there is already a cost to those who live or trade beside dilapidated premises, in that their property loses value? If more buildings become dilapidated, the effect will be a knock-on loss in rates revenue for councils. We also have to look at those issues when it comes to the rates cost to councils and the prevention of further dilapidation. That can affect immediate neighbours as well as entire neighbourhoods and high streets.”
“Despite others' attempts to distract from the real level of the climate crisis, will the Minister give us some more information on the impact that climate change is actually having on Northern Ireland's farmers and why timely action is necessary for a just transition?”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. What is the impact of the ongoing budget uncertainty on our prisons?”
“As part of its Divis — A View to the Future project, it has made great strides in peatland recovery, helping to re-wet degraded peat, slow water flow, reduce erosion and support carbon sequestration and the recovery of native species. The reduction in flood risk to the greater Belfast area is of particular note. <BR /> <BR />Peatlands are crucial for us to achieve our climate change goals. We need to continue to support their protection and restoration by backing the Minister's efforts to enhance those sites, along with organisations that are at the forefront of peatland restoration.”
“However, when restored, peatlands become vital in our efforts to meet climate and biodiversity targets. That is why I welcome the priority given to protecting peatlands by my Alliance colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, especially in the publication of the peatlands strategy and advancing its implementation. In addition, the recently published wildlife strategy aims to support various projects to restore peatlands that have been damaged through wildfires. <BR /> <BR />Recently, an Alliance colleague and I visited Divis Mountain to see first-hand the excellent work undertaken there by the National Trust and Northern Ireland Environment Link. Rich in upland heath, blanket bog and species-rich grassland, the site is proving to be an excellent example of ecological restoration.”
“Today, I mark World Peatlands Day, which is celebrated every year on 2 June. It was established by the International Peatlands Society, and the day highlights the vital role that peatlands play in tackling the climate and nature emergencies. <BR /> <BR />Peatlands are some of our most important natural assets. They lock away vast amounts of carbon, support unique wildlife and act as natural water filters, improving the quality of our lakes and rivers. When degraded, however, they release carbon, increase flood risk and undermine water quality. <BR /> <BR />I am all too aware of those issues in my South Antrim constituency, particularly regarding ongoing flooding along the Sixmilewater river and the ecological crisis that we continue to face at Lough Neagh.”
“I thank the Minister for the statement and for the broad mention of animal welfare. Will the Minister update us on cross-border cooperation on companion animal welfare?”
“I welcome the Minister's statement. The Minister will be aware of the importance of Lough Neagh, especially the zebra mussel issue, to the wider aquaculture sector. He will be aware, too, of my recent engagement on that on behalf of constituents. Will the Minister give an update on any future ownership of Lough Neagh and on matters that would help us along the road of environmental governance improvements and environmental improvement more generally?”
“I thank all Members for contributing to the debate and say again that cruelty in the name of sport has no place in a modern society. I therefore encourage all Members to join me and my colleagues in supporting the principles of the Bill at Second Stage.”
“I am grateful for Gerry Carroll's response in his speech. He expressed support and talked about scaremongering in relation to dog-walking and other things. Like Claire Sugden, who spoke after him, he has been supportive of animal welfare measures. Claire has been supportive of that in the all-party group, too. I am grateful for her support on these matters and for her contribution today. Like Claire, Gerry returned to the principles of the Bill. I do not think that it is unfair to say that, at that stage, it might have been a while since we had heard about the principles of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />As you and other Members know, Madam Principal Deputy, the entire point of the Second Stage debate is to debate the principles, and we have done that. There were disagreements, most of them respectful.”
“I do not think that other Members do either, given that they seem not to have quoted from it beyond the newspaper report that I read. We need to be clear that the report was written for a pro-hunting lobby group, requested by and provided to it. There is a snapshot of it in a newspaper, but we do not have a full report to consider.”
“He then made the comment that — I quote — began, "If the Bill sponsor were serious": Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I put that to you in the hope that you and the House will understand why I will not give a more substantive reply to somebody who speaks to me and my colleagues in that way and then accuses us of sneering. I will move on. None of the other comments will get a response because of the tone that was used. <BR /> <BR />Timothy Gaston was courteous. He opened by describing the Bill as vague and then quoted a KC who said that it was complex; I am not sure how that works out. He said that I said that I had considered the report — I would consider any report from a KC by the way — but I have no idea what is in the full report.”
“<BR /> <BR />Gareth Wilson said that the Bill was complicated but, again, did not suggest any amendments or changes. <BR /> <BR />Brian Kingston talked about "unacceptable cruelty". I am grateful for the support that he was willing to give the Bill to go to Committee Stage. <BR /> <BR />I turn to Jonny Buckley's contribution. I will do something that I do not often do in the Chamber, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, in almost refusing to address what Jonny talked about today. I will give you my rationale. Jonny spoke about me and my colleagues as those who are inflicting harm, because our views differ from his. It is not the first time that something like that has happened. He then made the scathing comment that we had no understanding of the countryside, when he knows fine well that many of us represent rural areas.”
“I thank Christine Bailey and those who have campaigned with her for their support of the cause and their sterling work on behalf of animals and on animal welfare, which is ongoing and relates not just to the single action that I am taking. <BR /> <BR />Matthew O'Toole spoke for the Opposition. I thank him for his support. He spoke about the immense cruelty involved in all of this. <BR /> <BR />Harry Harvey said that he was unable to support the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Peter Martin is not here. I wish he were, because he spoke about annoying people on both sides of the divide, and I was going to say, "Welcome to my world". Some of us have been doing that for 50 years. I am grateful for his support, and I will engage with Peter and other colleagues as we go forward.”
“She expressed reservations about Members' Bills but then openly said that she had intended to introduce one. I see inconsistency in that: we cannot say that somebody can start to do it but I or other Members cannot. <BR /> <BR />Phillip Brett described today's debate as an example of the Assembly at its best and spoke — I am grateful for this — in support of the principles of the Bill. He said that what the Bill took aim at was morally wrong and that we needed modern standards. <BR /> <BR />Michelle Guy, my Alliance colleague, spoke in detail about the real lived experience of some of her constituents; I have spoken to them as well.”
“He spoke about licences, foxes below ground and falconry, which, he said, should be considered at Committee Stage, but he made it clear that he would not support any opportunity to amend or add to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I am grateful to Kate Nicholl for her contribution and to her young son for the lovely drawing that he did to give me support. Kate spoke about constituency casework and the fact that so many people agree with a ban on hunting. <BR /> <BR />Diane Forsythe is not in the Chamber. In fairness, Members who are no longer here had every opportunity to be in the Chamber to hear what I have to say, but I hope that I am not being unfair in any of my commentary. Diane spoke about financial implications and seeking clarification.”
“I was not massively surprised to hear Tom Buchanan oppose the Bill. He cited a few general objections and omitted something that I will refer to later. He seemed not to mention foxhounds at all, which I found strange. That is a recurring theme among many who are against the Bill. He spoke about the absence of scientific evidence in favour of it but offered none on the status quo. That is another recurring theme, especially in regard to pest control. <BR /> <BR />Patsy McGlone spoke in the spirit of allowing the Bill to go to Committee Stage and talked about concerns relating to dog walkers and about the need for further scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />Paul Frew said that he was grateful for the exemptions.”
“As a member of the Ulster Unionist Party, he said that he would be content to support the Bill at this stage but stressed the importance of robust scrutiny and legal certainty. I am more than content, with my colleagues, to continue to have conversations with him on those matters in either his Committee capacity or his party capacity. <BR /> <BR />Áine Murphy of Sinn Féin spoke in support of the Bill, and I am very grateful for that. She spoke of the need to increase animal welfare standards across the island of Ireland.”
“Scotland strengthened its legislation in 2023, and the Government in GB are consulting on banning trail hunting due to the loopholes that it creates, so today is an opportunity to prevent Northern Ireland from falling even further behind when it comes to animal welfare. <BR /> <BR />I will now reflect as briefly as I can on Members' comments. I apologise in advance if I do not get them all in or respond to them all with the same amount of detail, but I will try to be representative. I clarified a point early on for Paul Frew about a reference to packs of dogs, and I hope that he has since found that and been able to look at it. Robbie Butler, as Committee Chair, talked of Committee consideration of the matter.”
“I thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for chairing the debate, along with your Deputy Speaker colleague and the Speaker. I take this opportunity to respond to the debate and thank all Members for their contributions this afternoon and, indeed, this evening. <BR /> <BR />It has been an important discussion. Whilst some arguments were, as far as I am concerned, aimed to divert attention from the main issue of cruelty, the Bill also received much welcome support, and I am very grateful for that. Before addressing the points that were raised, I emphasise once more that Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK without a ban on hunting with dogs. We need to write that into the record again. Other jurisdictions have had legislation in place for around 20 years.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to deliberately misrepresent my words? I intervened — I was grateful that Mr Gaston took the intervention — on a query regarding the definition and description of an "enclosed space". I did so to be helpful, and I stand over that. Mr Buckley implied that I was referring to policy and activity, which I clearly was not, and it should at least be written into the record that that was a misrepresentation of what I said, whether it was deliberate or not.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker —.”
“Again, I thank the Member for giving way. I hope that he knows that I am trying to be helpful here. The term "enclosed space" is a generic but inclusive term. Does the Member understand that it could include all enclosed spaces? It could be a barn, a cave, a hole in the ground or a shed. If one tried to list every possible enclosed space, one may well leave some out and create loopholes. That is probably the exact term that one is looking for, because it is a catch-all option. I hope that the Member can take that on board.”
“That is the entire intent of the Bill, and it is explained in a short sentence. I thank the Member for allowing me to intervene, and I hope that that helps him.”
“This is the second time today that I have been challenged on the same question by Mr Gaston. I thank him for giving way. I am happy to clarify that. If he reads the paragraph that he is talking about to the end, he will see that, after "another activity", it has wording in brackets that talks about scent. It states:”
“On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Will you rule — or refer this for a ruling — on whether the Member is misleading the House? The Bill Office was not presented with anything that was poorly drafted. You know, Principal Deputy Speaker — I suspect that the Member also knows this — that the Bill was not handwritten by me and then handed to the Bill Office; it was drafted with expertise and professionalism in this Building. What he has just said is a slight on those people. Perhaps it is also a slight on me, but I do not care about that. It is a slight on those people. He should withdraw that remark now.”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. Before he proceeds, I ask him to clarify something for me. I will refer later to the generalisations that have filtered through today's debate. Will he agree that he does not represent every view in the rural area, where views on hunting with dogs, animal cruelty, fox hunting and an entire range of other issues differ? There is diversity of opinion in rural areas. He does not represent all of that opinion, and nor do I. We should acknowledge that.”
“If we are going to question that, let us at least read the Bill, and let us at least be accurate. Packs of dogs are mentioned in the Bill three or four times, on two pages, from new article 23G onwards.”
“I will be brief. The Member may consider that Mr Buckley made a good intervention, but it was an inaccurate one. I will explain why. If he looks at page 4, which sets out new article 23G, he will see, from 2(a) onwards, a number of references to a "pack" of dogs.”
“I am explaining it to you. The Bill explains it clearly. Will you accept that?”
“That really is self-explanatory. The Member is asking for things to be included that are not included, which is, frankly — I say it respectfully — preposterous, but this —”
“Will the Member accept from me — I hope, in the right spirit — that my explanation at the start of the debate of hunting a wild mammal using one or more dogs is really quite self-explanatory? It is using one or more dogs to hunt, catch and kill a wild mammal. That is completely different from using a gun to hunt the wild mammal. That is the difference. That is why guns are not included. The intended offence is to:”
“May I clarify that for the Member? I am trying to be helpful and courteous. Does the Member accept, in good faith, that, when I gave that answer in Committee, I was not trying to be obstructive? I was trying to be factual. The dictionary definition — the any-Google-search definition — of a "pack" of dogs is "more than two dogs". It is not about my or someone else's opinion on what should be in law. Does he accept that I gave the answer in that context and for no other reason?”
“I am grateful to Mr Butler for giving way. If it helps, I can point out, in response to the intervention made to Mr Butler, that, where someone is going out and shooting, as referenced by Mr Frew, they are not subject to the Bill, because they are shooting and not using dogs to kill a wild mammal. It is as clear as that, as is the case in other jurisdictions. I will say more on it later, but, for clarification, that sets it out.”
“There are references to dogs forming a pack, yes. If the Member does not mind, I will conclude my remarks. I will look at that further in a moment. As I said previously, I am prepared to engage on that going forward. <BR /> <BR />As I was saying, blood sports have no place in a modern, civilised society. I ask Members to support the Bill passing its Second Stage in order to consign this barbaric pastime to the past where it belongs. We are more than a quarter of the way through the 21st century, and we need to reflect that in terms of animal welfare.”