Doug Beattie
Upper Bann · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I absolutely accept what the Minister said earlier, which is that she would not have been able to get such a Bill out of the Executive. That is the sentence that you would have heard from me, Minister, had you waited a minute. I absolutely accept that that is the case, and I think that we all do.”
“Just a minute. Minister, I guess that I disagree with you, because I too did my work. I accept that I do not have the resources that you and your Department have, but I sat with the Public Prosecution Service and talked through this very thing, and it said that it was workable.”
“The Director of Public Prosecutions would look at the seriousness of the offence — death by dangerous driving, risk of harm to the public, serial arson, assault, sexual behaviour that is a danger to the public — and he would also look at the best interests of the child, because we have not got away from diversionary measures here.”
“Had James Bulger been murdered by two nine-year-olds, we would probably be having a discussion about the minimum age of criminal responsibility being nine, such was the anger in 1993 when that horrendous crime took place. All the ages are arbitrary, and we need to deal with that.”
“That raises the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12. It is not what some people, who want it to be 14, want; it is not what others, who want it to stay at 10, want; but I believe that 12 is right. Why do I presume that a child can commit a criminal offence at 12 years of age?”
“In essence, however, that amendment would raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14, apart from in the case of the offences in that closed list. It has been said many times, and I will not repeat what has been said, but the closed list does not make sense to me either.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,482 lines we hold for Doug Beattie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 30.
“I would rather have something in front of me. I fully accept what the Minister said earlier about her reasons for introducing the Bill when she did, and I have no issue with that. However, that is not to say that it will go through more quickly. We may have to delay taking evidence to ensure that we have all the text.”
“I am coming to a conclusion, so you will not have to jump in again. I have no issue with that, but, again, as with everything, sometimes you just want to see it in your hand; you want to see it in black and white; you want to see it written down so that you understand how it all works together. I will be honest. I am somebody who would say, "Do not take evidence until we have all the information", because I do not want to bring a stakeholder in to give evidence, then get another clause and have to bring them back to say, "This now feeds into that clause".”
“I absolutely accept that, but the point that I am trying to make is this: if we do not have the wording of that clause, we do not know how it speaks to Part 2. That is all that I am talking about. You could well be right that it is covered elsewhere, but I do not want to end up not seeing something, going through the whole scrutiny phase of Part 2 and then having to revisit it all when we suddenly get the wording of the clause, and that feeds into the Bill in a way that is slightly different from what we expected. The point that I am making is not a criticism. I would just like to have all the details so that I can see how they speak to each other in the wider sense.”
“The reality of that — we do not have the wording — goes all the way back to Part 2, because organised crime uses children. If we do not have the details of that clause, how can we consider Part 2, which is all about children?”
“I thank the Minister for that. You are probably right — of course you are — but, if the Northern Ireland Bar has a concern, it is only right and proper that we look at it in detail; and that is what I am talking about. <BR /> <BR />The no bill piece in the Bill makes absolute sense, and we have no issue with that. <BR /> <BR />There has been a lot of discourse about what will be added to the Bill at a later stage. I have my concerns, as will we all. The Chair of the Committee outlined them. It is important that we do, and nobody should be afraid of people being critical of something. I have looked at the things that will be added to the Bill, and they are all really important, but the last one struck me: provisions to tackle those who participate in or direct serious organised crime.”
“I will keep saying it: I have confidence that the Committee will be able to work with the Justice Minister and the Justice Department to make sure that we can look at this. <BR /> <BR />In principle, I support the use of live links, which is covered in Part 3. Again, the devil will be in the detail. <BR /> <BR />Part 4 is on the administration of justice. There is a clause on legal aid and the role of the taxing master, who is an independent judicial office holder. The Bar of Northern Ireland has an issue with that. I find it extremely complicated, if I am being honest; it is something that I will have to sit down and look at. That is clause 28. Again, we can look at that.”
“Custody must always be viewed as the last resort, but we must accept that custody under PACE is the only option in some cases. We should not shy away from that. In 2022-23, 176 admissions to the Woodland Juvenile Justice Centre were related to PACE, with just three of those under sentence. The issue is that 45 people, over the same period, went in on remand. We really need to look at remand and have an acceptance, in part, that we should always make sure that children are bailed without condition. That is what we want to do but, again, we have to look at that in detail. I accept that the case that we saw in Wolverhampton, with the sentencing of two 13-year-olds for murder, will feed into the general discourse about this, but we should not allow it to. This is something very different, but it is something that we will have to think about.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also note that a consultation was already been done on this in 2020. I want to look at that consultation to see whether the changes to the retention of biometrics in legacy cases, which were not there in 2020, change its effect. So, there are a couple of things that I want to look at, but, broadly, I am pretty comfortable with the 75, 50 and 25-year rule that we are talking about for qualified recordable, non-custodial and less-than-five-year offences. However, I want to see the detail. <BR /> <BR />Part 2 is on bail, remand and custody for children. I and others have been lobbied hard about that. Far too many of our children are being held in the Woodlands Juvenile Justice Centre over a long period of time, not all at once.”
“First, through scrutiny and working with the Justice Committee, I want to see how it stacks up with the very different rules on the retention of biometric material in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, particularly in the investigations that will be conducted by the ICRIR. I do not want two-tier investigations. I do not want to have a situation where DNA is retained for the legacy investigation of someone who was murdered in 1975 in the Troubles but the murder of someone else in 1975, which had nothing to do with the Troubles, does not get the same level of investigation because we have destroyed the biometric material for that case. I am not saying that that is going to be the case, but it is certainly something in the Bill that I want to look at. I have no concern that we will be able to look at that.”
“Part 1 is on the retention of biometric material. That was brought about, as we have been told, by the Marper and Gaughran judgements that indefinite retention of biometric and DNA material is incompatible with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Going back in time, one of the issues with implementing the findings of the Marper judgement — in 2013, 2014 or maybe 2015; I was not about at the time — was the Stormont House Agreement. The provision in the Stormont House Agreement for the retention of biometric material in legacy cases made it really complicated. <BR /> <BR />There are two issues that I want to raise on the retention of biometric material.”
“I have confidence. I have confidence that the Justice Committee will be able to work with the Justice Department and the Minister to deal with any issues that come down the road, and there will be some. I will try to be brief, but I want to raise a couple of points because scrutiny is key. The Bill is large and, at times, quite complicated.”
“I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. Second Stage allows us to debate the Bill's high-level aims and wave-topping issues. I support the Justice Committee Chair in her expansive words, which were fair and challenging. They set the tone for the way in which we have to go forward on this, and that is scrutiny and challenge. I know that, over the coming weeks and months, my party will look at and scrutinise the Bill and the detailed evidence that we will get from a variety of stakeholders.”
“Thank you, Minister. It is good that you have recognised the fact that there is a trade coming from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland and then onwards to Great Britain. Lucy's law, which is already being used in a part of the United Kingdom — England — is making a real dent on puppy and kitten trafficking. The Minister said he was going to look into Lucy's law. Will he give us an update on whether we will look at that?”
“I thank the Minister for her brevity. We have said that we will finish the review by December. However, if the Policing Board is so key to policing, have we pushed this in far too early and should the independent reviewers be given time to finish the review as they require and when they deem to be fit?”
“You have answered my question for the most part. We have the DOJ's tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme, TEO's ending violence against women and girls framework and the PSNI's tackling violence against women and girls work, which has been running for two years now. Does the Minister think that it is now time to have a single, strategic lead on this so that we are not duplicating resources?”
“Sometimes you have to look close to home in order to deal with some of those issues. Is the First Minister willing to speak to the Finance Minister to have her look at the Northern Ireland Civil Service staff handbook to make sure that it is changed to reflect the six outcomes that you want from the ending violence against women and girls strategy?”
“Thank you, Minister. I welcome the framework. It really is something that we can get stuck into. Much of prevention is brought about through education, and you focused on that heavily. Punishment, however, is also a clear deterrent. Outcome 5 refers to a justice system that "holds perpetrators to account" and that in itself brings societal "confidence". Our sentencing for violence against women and girls in particular is absolutely pitiful: will the Minister and Executive Office work with the Justice Minister and the judiciary so that we get sentences that are fit for purpose?”
“We simply cannot allow our Police Service to dwindle any more than it has already. We have 4,500 operational officers who we can put on the streets. That is absolutely pitiful. There are 700 or 800, or maybe more, who are on short-term or long-term sick. Policing is a contact sport; that is the reality. They need resilience. Patten talked about 7,500 officers and 2,500 reserves. Technology means that we could reduce that number, but we are not anywhere close. This is a wake-up call for us to understand the nature of what is happening with our Police Service, and we should all, rightly, support it now.”
“I am sorry; I have no time. <BR /> <BR />To that end, a case can be made directly to the Prime Minister's office and the Home Office for more funding to help with national security operations.”
“Stop heckling. <BR /> <BR />There is a serious and credible national security threat in the United Kingdom. That is magnified in Northern Ireland, where there are republican terrorists, loyalist paramilitaries, organised crime gangs, the far right and the far left. We have the only open border with the EU, which means that we are at risk of wider, global terrorism.”
“In saying that, our amendment lays out where that extra cash could come from.”
“Well, that is on record: you said that you engaged with the Chief Constable. That is OK. I was told something different.”
“Instead of castigating the Chief Constable over a letter that he sent to the Prime Minister to raise the profile of an agenda and try to secure funding, we should welcome his initiative in doing so. He is standing up for his force and his rank-and-file officers; I have not heard one voice today that has not done similar, so I think that he is right to do so. <BR /> <BR />The third issue is the question of where the extra cash will come from. That is an important and a fair question. We voted against the Budget because it is not workable. It is just unworkable: simple as that. I was staggered to find out that the Minister had not engaged with her Chief Constable to say, "This is the likely outcome of a Budget", before agreeing to it. That is the fundamental problem.”
“It is right for the Minister to stand up in the Chamber to fight for her police force. I would like to see more of that, to be honest. <BR /> <BR />The second issue is this: is the Chief Constable right to reach out to the Prime Minister's office for further funding? Of course he is. If he can add value by reaching out to the Prime Minister's office, he should do that. Chief constables across the United Kingdom have the ability to reach into the Prime Minister's office and to inform policy through the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC). Although the PSNI is not a full member of the National Police Chiefs' Council, it contributes to it, and the NPCC speaks to the Prime Minister's office all the time.”
“That is an important point, because failure to understand the difference between strategic and operational matters is where we have a problem. Nobody is arguing that the Minister or other politicians should be involved in the day-to-day running of the police's tasking, routine, logistics or cooperation with other Departments' forces. That is the operational level at which the Policing Board should help the Chief Constable with an oversight and challenge function. However, ensuring that the police have enough funding to resource and plan for long-term outcomes and have the right workforce to achieve those high-level initiatives is the strategic level. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly is right to scrutinise the Minister. It is important that we scrutinise the Minister. I thank the Minister for coming to respond to the debate.”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Policing is an increasingly complex issue, and we ask more and more of our police force every year with less and less resource. It has been a good and robust debate, and it is right that we have a robust debate. This has certainly not been theatre. I disagree with the Minister in that I do not think that anybody has been dragged through the mud, but I agree with her that this is a life-and-death issue. It is good to have these debates. I thank the Chief Constable for raising the issue, because that is what brought us here. <BR /> <BR />In winding up on our amendment, I will raise three issues. First, funding and resourcing of the police is not an operational matter but a strategic issue.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I guess that you are right. I was just answering the point. I am not trying to bring this down in any shape or form. We are taking a stand on a Budget that we do not think is right. We think that it is below need, we think that it handicaps our health service and we think that it will create catastrophic cuts. We will not implement them. That is the point that I am making. If people want to drag me into a different debate, I am happy enough to be dragged into a different debate, but I accept your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I will finish, and I was close to finishing anyway. I thought that all the contributions were good — I think that everyone made their points very well — but the Ulster Unionist Party cannot and will not support this Budget, now or later on.”
“Thank you for the intervention. With all due respect, that really is a strange old intervention. I am not asking for anything to be collapsed. I am expressing a disagreement with the Budget, but I will say this. You talk to me about your tactics with the Irish Sea border. Did they work? Is the Irish Sea border still there or has it gone?”
“That is what I am doing. I am standing and I am saying, "I do not agree". There is not a single person in this room, I think, who does not want to do the best that they possibly can with the Budget that has been allocated. I simply do not agree with it.”
“<BR /> <BR />When we did this for this below-needs Budget and when we cut Health by £184 million or 2·3%, no more than two weeks later, the same three political parties decided to give themselves an increase of a quarter of a million pounds to run their own party structures. Of course, a quarter of a million pounds will not do an awful lot. That extra £100,000 that has gone to Sinn Féin to run its own party structures here will not go very far, that extra £85,000 that went to the DUP to run its own party structures here will not go very far, and neither will the £45,000 that has gone to the Alliance Party. Of course, I accept that it is not a huge amount of money, but if you are a charity and you rely on micro funding, it is a huge amount of money. <BR /> <BR />Sometimes, you do have to stand and say, "I do not agree".”
“Everybody thinks that that Government are going to thrust their hand into their pocket and pull out an awful lot of money and fire it towards our Executive and say, "There you go". Not a chance. Here is what they will do. They will look and say, "We called your bluff, we gave you this Budget, you made do. Well, you can make do again this year". That is what is going to happen. We will be made to make do again next year because we did not stand up to them. It is not just about talking about the allocation of the Budget. The allocation of the Budget is the allocation of the Budget. It is the quantum of the whole thing that has been given to us for the Minister to be able to divvy up, and to divvy up without any strategic outcomes.”
“Can we delay it for a week just so that we can discuss it further?". They said no, and, on the Executive, they voted for the Budget, while we voted against it. <BR /> <BR />An awful lot of the time, I hear Sinn Féin say, "Tory austerity. We're in this mess because of Tory austerity", and then it votes in favour of a Tory Budget. Let us call it an "austerity Budget": Sinn Féin voted in favour of it. All that we said to the Executive was, "Don't. Let's go back as a collective and argue the case for more". That was what we asked for: nothing more. I will tell you what: we asked for a week in which to do that, and the Executive said no. <BR /> <BR />What, do we really think, will happen here when we get a new Government?”
“I never asked any Department to give up money; I asked Executive Ministers to stand together and say, "This Budget isn't good enough". I asked them to go back to the Government in Westminster and tell them that it is not good enough. That is what I asked for: that Executive Ministers say to the Government, "This is not workable", and then go back to them before we agreed the Budget. <BR /> <BR />There was supposed to be a meeting of the Executive on 18 April to discuss the Budget to make sure that everyone knew what was going on. That meeting was cancelled, so our Minister found out about the Budget only days before the meeting on 25 April. When that debate, which lasted for less than two hours, was being held at the Executive on 25 April, I rang party leaders and said to them, "Please do not vote on the Budget.”
“Again, it is health professionals who have said that, not us. <BR /> <BR />The cry, as always, to us is, "If we're going to give the Department of Health more money, where are we going to take that money from? From which Department are the cuts going to come?". I will answer that in two ways, if I can. First, no needs-based assessment has been done, and we have no Programme for Government, so I cannot say from where the money will come. Nobody can say where the money will come from, because no strategic outcomes have been laid out, because we have no Programme for Government. People can giggle all that they want. The Executive are making it up, because there has been no scrutiny. They are literally making it up. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, I am asked, "Which Department will give up more money?".”
“Thank you. Yes, I am perfectly aware of what the debate is about. For me, standing here now, it is about the future of our health service. Members talk about what is said to them on the doors, and I will not go much further, but, when I go to the doors, people are interested in what is happening with the health service, and facets of it are not good. Let us be clear: if you support the Budget, you accept the Budget, and we cannot accept a below-needs Budget that will have catastrophic effects. Why would we? <BR /> <BR />We fully accept that, in working with any Executive, budgets need to be pooled and shared; I absolutely accept that. A baseline is needed for that, however, and, at this moment, the baseline that we have for the budget for our health service is pretty catastrophic.”
“I will, if you can give me just a moment. <BR /> <BR />It is certainly below need for the Department of Health, which needs about a 6% increase each year just to stand still, and it is certainly not getting that. The Budget will create catastrophic cuts for the health service, and the Executive were told that it would before they took a vote on 25 April. They were told not by the Health Minister but by the health providers that it would cause catastrophic cuts to healthcare. The Executive either knew that and ignored it or knew it and did not care, but, after less than two hours of debate on 25 April, they voted in favour of a below-needs Budget. I am happy to give way.”
“The Ulster Unionist Party will not support the Budget, however, because it is a below-needs Budget that was produced without a strategic plan or a needs-based assessment. There was no scrutiny and no public consultation. That argument was well set out by the leader of the Opposition, but, without a doubt, the Budget is below need for the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for Communities.”
“I give my contribution from the Back Bench only because it is more comfortable back here and for no other reason, in case anybody thinks otherwise. <BR /> <BR />It has been a good debate. Members have expressed their opinions and concerns, and they have done it well. I noticed that they have pointed out all the problems that we have in regard to the Budget, and then they all said that they would vote for it.”
“It is OK to have an all-Ireland strategy, but there must be a degree of harmonisation, and reducing VAT for the hospitality sector could help us with that harmonisation. <BR /> <BR />We have to look at what is in front of us. The ETA issue is in front of us, and we have to deal with it. The DUP's amendment provides a solution, which is the one that the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce gave us as well, although it is not ideal. Lastly, it is about the aspiration of direct routes from North America to Northern Ireland and US pre-clearance for those leaving Northern Ireland to go to North America. Those may be aspirations, but let us think big, not small.”
“That means working to reduce the minimum salary threshold from £38,000 to something more akin to the average wage here, which is £32,000. What we are basically saying at this time is that those key people whom we need to come and work in our hospitality sector cannot come here because they cannot earn £38,000. Our average wage is around £32,000. We are therefore being priced out. To allow Northern Ireland to compete in an all-island tourism strategy, we must provide the tools that give our hospitality and tourism businesses a level playing field. Reducing VAT for hospitality and tourism to 13·5%, which is in line with what they have in Ireland, would provide a huge opportunity for the industry here.”
“The five-day waiver is not ideal, but, as the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce said, it is a solution to the problem that has been put in front of us. Those are two issues: direct flights from North America and the ETA, to which we need to come up with sensible solutions if we are not able to get rid of it. However, I concede that, as the motion states, getting rid of it is the best thing to do. <BR /> <BR />The last issue that I would like to raise is our hospitality sector. There is no point in having all those things if we do not focus on our hospitality sector. Our hospitality sector is part of the draw to get people to come to this part of the island and across the whole of the island, and it will help to create an economic bounce. However, to fully staff the sector, we need controlled migration.”
“— I am glad that you are a person of aspiration. I am also a person of aspiration, so I will keep that aspiration. We should still aim to get in long-haul routes. I still think that getting US pre-clearance is important, however. <BR /> <BR />Electronic travel authorisation is an absolute obstacle to tourism, without a shadow of a doubt. If it were gone, that would be by far the best outcome for everybody. We all know that. I attended the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce mission brief on business growth, however, and it outlined how the ETA is a real issue and said, as the DUP has said, that we could create a five-day waiver for movement, including tourists and tour operators, by working with the Irish Government to create a mobility task force for the island of Ireland.”
“I am glad that you do not disagree, and —”
“<BR /> <BR />I visited the Tourism Ireland office in New York just after COVID restrictions had started to ease. Its representatives talked about the routes between North America and Ireland reopening. Those routes are vital to tourism, but all go into the Republic of Ireland and not Northern Ireland. It is key that we try, through our tourism strategy, to get more direct routes from the United States and the rest of North America into Northern Ireland. There has been much talk about US pre-clearance for Northern Ireland. That would be an absolute game changer for us, although I acknowledge that it is a difficult issue to resolve.”
“The motion and the amendments mention some of the wonderful tourist attractions that we have that draw people here from across the British Isles and from across the world: the Wild Atlantic Way; the Causeway coastal route; the walled maiden city of Londonderry; Fermanagh and Tyrone in the Hidden Heartlands; and Armagh and Down in the Ancient East. Those are all wonderful things that make us stand out. We have exceptional golf courses, lakes and mountains. We have the Titanic museum and superb hospitality, food, sporting events and leisure activities. All the ingredients are there, but we just need a plan. <BR /> <BR />I will concentrate on three elements, and I hope that people will not mind if I concentrate on Northern Ireland, because it is sometimes missed when we look at the whole, but it is part of the whole.”
“I will start by apologising for missing topical questions to the Minister for Communities. My timing was just pretty shoddy. <BR /> <BR />The motion and the DUP's amendment No 1 are good, and I have no issue with Sinn Féin's amendment No 2 either. The debate brings me back to my childhood, when I used to holiday on the lakes in Fermanagh with my mother and father. It is a good subject to discuss. <BR /> <BR />We are all fortunate to live on this island, be that in Ireland or Northern Ireland. We have a rich heritage, history and culture.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. I am sure that we can all agree that the Police Ombudsman is a critical role, and we want to make sure that we safeguard the position. Was a risk assessment conducted of whether the ombudsman should exercise the powers of her office while apparently under criminal investigation? If so, by whom? Was her security vetting reviewed?”
“The Prisons 25by25 programme is important. You are absolutely right that one of the key issues is our people. Minister, are new prison officer recruits security-cleared before they have access to PRISM (the Prison Service management information system) on the landings?”
“We can do that if we work together and understand concerns. There are concerns, and we cannot diminish them. We cannot just say, "You are wrong"; we can change only if we genuinely listen to each other's concerns.”
“I do not believe that private prayer about sexual identity, conducted in a private, supportive and affirmative way, is conversion therapy unless it is subversive and harmful. I do not believe that pastoral care is about changing someone's gender identity unless it deliberately targets the young or the vulnerable with the intent to do so. I really do not. The party to my right has tabled an amendment that tries to strike a balance and raise a concern. I will support that amendment. A person of faith should support banning conversion therapy not in spite of their faith but because of it. <BR /> <BR />I will use a line that I used in 2021:”