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 20 of 30.
“He is right: there is a can being kicked down the road, but some of it is absolutely necessary, as our councils and businesses need that time to prepare. It is not ideal. <BR /> <BR />We then had the recurring blame, blame, funding, funding, funding, blame, blame, blame game again. It is not going to help us, but it is right to point out if we think that somebody has done something wrong. The services, the prosperity fund, and the lack of information are all things that Pat raised and which are happening time and time again and were mentioned time and time again. <BR /> <BR />Kellie Armstrong thanked the Committee for holding the event. You are welcome. She focused on the difficulties that lie ahead for councils, including councils' environmental health services. She talked about the common frameworks and the Northern Ireland fisheries.”
“It was an important exercise, and he is absolutely right that the themes and issues were talked about over and over again. It was the same one. It could virtually have been the same council in front of us raising the same issues over and over again. He focused on the hard work of some councils that do not know what is going on. We have to take our hats off to that. If we are sitting here not knowing what is going on, you can imagine what it is like in the councils when they do not know what is going on, and the departments in councils that do not know what is going on. Pat was right to raise that. That is another theme. <BR /> <BR />He raised the issue of lack of preparation and information and how some issues are being kicked down the road. He also mentioned the time frame between the transition and the derogations coming into effect.”
“<BR /> <BR />Trevor Clarke talked about the actual engagement with the councils. It was incredibly important that we spoke to them and got their points of view. They were very open and candid, and some Members talked about that. They did mention funding issues, and there are funding issues. That came up time and again. Trevor focused on something that was not raised an awful lot, which is that some councils are working really hard to get the best out of it and to get opportunities. There will be opportunities. Even in the worst places in the world — I have been in a few of them — trust me, there are opportunities to be had. Some people here and some councils will be looking for those opportunities, so Trevor was right to raise them. <BR /> <BR />Pat Sheehan talked about how important it was to talk to the councils.”
“Even look at this evidence that we took from the councils: they gave us that evidence not even knowing about the protocol that was coming in, and even that has moved on. There is no harm whatsoever in batting backwards and forwards and having a strong position on something. <BR /> <BR />Colin gave his brief, and he gave a very good summation as far as the Committee was concerned. In his personal contribution, he said that it was an absolute disaster — Brexit was a disaster. If his name was Donald Trump and it was a tweet, there might be a wee thing underneath it saying that it was a contested view and that some people do not think that it is a disaster. Some people genuinely do not, and we have to accept that. There are difficulties there, and you cannot not argue the difficulties.”
“I thank the Ministers as well for coming here, and certainly the junior Minister for his contribution to the debate. It is 22:30 hours, 10.30 pm, and not the 2.00 am that I had to do on the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill. If I was allowed to talk for longer, I might just keep you here longer, but I am not. <BR /> <BR />It was interesting that, as soon as the Chair got up and started speaking, five words in he was bombarded by Christopher Stalford with, "The UK are net contributors", and Martina Anderson batting back with, "Yes, but what about the rebate?". That typified the point that we all have views on Brexit. We all had a position when this whole thing started, but we have moved on.”
“I will wind it down as quickly as I can. As the last person to speak on the Floor before we break up for Christmas, I am not sure that people want to hear me speaking for too long. I am like the cool-down act. The stars have been in and said all the words, and the people are slowly drifting out of the building while this guy gets up and tries to tell some jokes to keep people interested. I guess that that is just the way that it is going to be. <BR /> <BR />The most important thing is to thank everybody for their contributions to this really important debate that gave councils a voice in the Assembly that they do not always get. The most important thing is the hard work that is being done by our councils at this time in what are really difficult circumstances.”
“However, this is high-stakes because, if we get it wrong, the people who are experiencing domestic abuse will suffer: men and women and their children, teenagers and younger. It is high-stakes, and we must remember that. We are drawing near to the end of the process, not just here today but as we come to Final Stage. I honestly believe that the work that has been put in, by the Committee, the Assembly and the Minister and her staff, means that we can be proud of what we produce. It will help people who are in extremely difficult positions. My party and I will support the second group of amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />Yes, people have got tetchy on certain issues, but that is because those issues are important to them; they are not tetchy purely to be obstructive. They have a buy-in to this process, and that is why it feels as if they are being tetchy. However, if you stand back a little and look at what we are trying to achieve, you will see that this is a high-stakes game. The word "game" is the wrong one to use.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was not going to speak but, since I am now on my feet, I will do so. This Bill has not had a laboured process, but it has had a hard-fought one. We have focused a little on legal aid, but there is so much more to the Bill. <BR /> <BR />In this group of amendments, we had real success with training, as we have made sure that training is annual and mandatory and that it will be registered. We will know what is taking place and whether it is working. That was done through collaboration. The Committee identified what it believed needed to happen and engaged with the Minister and her officials. The Minister came back with an amendment to our amendment. That is a good process; it is the right process. I see merit in the way we have gone about this.”
“That is because there is a real diligence in the Committee. Right now, at the eleventh hour, what we need to do is unite and understand what we are trying to achieve with the Bill. What we are trying to achieve is good legislation that helps victims of domestic violence — that horrific crime. By not dividing on the amendments, we will be sending out a good signal to those victims that we stand united in supporting them.”
“I do not feel the need to make that amendment, so, to me, it becomes superfluous to what we are trying to achieve here. As I said in the Justice Committee, we will not support amendment No 13. We will, however, make sure — I know that the Minister expects us all to do this — that she is held to her word and that she will bring in clause 27 and clause 27A, once she has done the checks and balances and assures herself that there will be no repercussive effects that will affect our block grant. <BR /> <BR />I will finish by saying that the work done by the Committee has been exceptional. As I said at the start, every conversation that we had was about making the Bill better — it really was. Some of the things that have been inserted in the Bill have taken me by surprise because I would never have thought of them.”
“I have trust. I have trust in our Ministers, and I have trust in the Committee Chair, the Deputy Chair, Committee members and other people that they will do exactly what they say they will do. The Minister has said that, if, having done the checks, there is no adverse effect, she will make sure that the amended clause 27 and new clause 27A will be commenced, and I believe her. I, therefore, support her in that. <BR /> <BR />The reality is that we do not know where we will be in 12 months. Nobody knows what will happen in 12 months. I think that the Chair said that, and he is absolutely right. I could go to the absolute extreme and say that, if we were to pass amendment No 13 and the change were put in place, but the Assembly then collapses in six months' time, we would have to pay out what could be an excessive amount of money.”
“Amendment No 13 says that, having agreed that the Minister needs time do checks and balances, we tell her, "OK, but you have 12 months". I am not in that space to say to the Minister, "You have 12 months"; I am in that space where the Minister tells me that she has a problem with it. If I agree that we have a problem with it, I need the Minister to be given the time and space to deal with that problem.”
“I supported that, but we received new information from the Minister that there may be a serious financial implication to it, including a repercussive effect. That was new information. Had we brought amendment No 15 to the Floor a week ago with that new information, I would not have been able to support it; I would have voted against it. <BR /> <BR />The Committee having met — how and when we met has been explained by numerous people — decided that we would remove amendment No 15, that there was a danger, and that the Minister needed time to do her checks and balances to make sure that we would not be given a legal aid bill in perpetuity that would have serious financial implications for our block grant and for all the other Departments that would have to chip in to help to fix it.”
“Again, it has been laid out quite well, and there is no point in my talking for the sake of talking. <BR /> <BR />We are not supporting amendment No 6 because there is an issue about the respondent. I have said before that we can all talk about people whom we have spoken to and we can all give vignettes — I have done it. I have spoken to people, women who have been domestically abused and who are being taken to court time and time again, and they do not have legal aid but the abuser does. It is a fine line and a fine balance, and we cannot support amendment No 6 for that reason. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 13, previously amendment No 15. I will be absolutely honest: I supported amendment No 15, which was to start legal aid when the Act came into force.”
“Amendment Nos 3 and 7 do exactly that. They define it and they define it well. <BR /> <BR />Amendments Nos 4, 5 and 6 are to amendment No 3. The arguments on amendment Nos 4 and 6 have been eloquently made. I guess that I can add to it. Amendment No 4 talks about "advice and assistance", whereas in the original amendment No 3, it is just "representation". In amendment No 4, that is not defined, which is a little bit too loose for me. For me, "representation" covers that. Normally, the first meeting with a solicitor is free anyway, and he gives you advice, and you should get support. I am happy with amendment No 3, without having to amend it with amendment No 4, so neither I nor my party will be supporting amendment No 4. <BR /> <BR />We will be supporting amendment No 5.”
“By saying that I do not mean that we are going to deny people legal aid. However, the reality is that we do not have the funding to go round, and we end up salami-slicing what we have, and some people will lose out. Nobody in this room wants to have to say, "You lose out, but you are going to get it". We have to be fiscally responsible. <BR /> <BR />I have raised the issue of legal aid long before now, as has the Chair, and the Minister knows that. We are close on three times the legal aid bill of Scotland, by head of population. In the European Union, we are second only to Norway in our legal aid bill. We have to be fiscally responsible. <BR /> <BR />Legal aid is complex. It is not just about savings; it is about understanding how we use the money that is available to us to make sure that we support the right people.”
“I get the sentiment where people say, "It is not about money, and it is not about how much we spend". The reality is that, unfortunately, if we are really honest, it is, in some cases.”
“The opposite is that amendment No 1 may mean that that child, who is possibly already traumatised by what may have happened, will be met by an understanding teacher who will take them by the hand, lead them in and support them. The small vignettes that I got from Paul Frew and other members of the Committee really stayed with me and showed me that what we are trying to achieve in the Bill is absolutely the right thing. At the end of this, we will produce a Bill in January that will be fit for purpose and good for those who suffer the awful crime of domestic abuse. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 has been explained in some detail. Amendment Nos 3 and 7 deal with legal aid, and we have spoken about legal aid and those amendments at length. Legal aid is complex.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to mention one thing on amendment No 1, if I may. It is something that I picked up on and that resonated with me. It was, I think, during a debate in Committee when Mr Frew explained amendment No 1 in real terms. It really resonated with me given what we are trying to achieve. Amendment No 1 is about information sharing with schools. He talked about a child going to school having had no sleep, possibly being late, having no lunch when they turned up and being met by an angry teacher who brought them in, not knowing that that child had possibly been involved in a domestic abuse incident the previous night.”
“Every conversation, every debate, every clause, every amendment and every amendment to an amendment to the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill have been had for the right reasons. Not one person has put something forward for the wrong reason; it has all been for the right reason. Today, at Further Consideration Stage, we are refining and balancing what is a really good Bill. We have done a fantastic job in the time frame to create what we have created. In many respects, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee have expressed my views on many of the amendments. I am never one to stand and talk about an amendment for the sake of it when the point has already been put across. The points about amendment Nos 1 and 2 have been put across, and the Ulster Unionist Party will support them.”
“I want to go on the record to recognise the work that was done by Jo-Anne Dobson. Sticking to the donation issue, further changes to blood donation deferral rules have been brought in to allow more gay men to donate. Will the Minister outline the changes to and the benefits of that?”
“I thank the Minister, particularly for saying that the word "inefficiency" will not be used with regard to mental health. The Minister will understand that many in the Prison Service, who have an extremely stressful job, are resentful of the use of the word "inefficiency" in respect of their mental health. I ask the Minister to confirm, for them, that that will be removed.”
“Thank you, First Minister. That is absolutely clear. Will the Minister agree with me that any legacy talks or strategies must include victims and have victims' input?”
“Future T:BUC initiatives are likely to be linked with the outcomes of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT). Will the Minister advise the House whether the FICT report is presently being developed and who, within TEO, is leading that development?”
“Over 1,000 people have died, so there are over 1,000 grieving families. We cannot keep that on. <BR /> <BR />I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for tabling the amendments and for challenging my points of view. That is the way it should be done. Tone is important, as is how we do things here and how we talk to each other. How we respect each other is incredibly important. However, what is most important is how we deal with the pandemic. We need to focus on that.”
“Of course; that is a given. I do not think that anybody is talking about going into a care home, lining up the residents, blindfolding them and sticking a needle into their arm without their knowing. Everybody has to be given the choice of whether they want to take a vaccine. The Member's point has been well made, but the point that I am making is that we need to be absolute leaders on this issue and tell people that the vaccine will get us out of the pandemic. If we do not — if Members show any division, or promote something completely different, even if they are merely promoting an issue that their constituents are concerned about — we will have a problem. If we do not have an uptake of the vaccine, we will not get out of the pandemic, and we will live this over and over and over again and lose people.”
“My last point is on vaccines. It is a good news story. It is important that we have a positive uptake and that we in the Assembly — every MLA — lead by example to get people to take the vaccine, because it will take us out of the pandemic. I saw someone saying that all MLAs should be first to take the vaccine to make sure that it works and has no adverse effects, and that we should do it publicly. I would be more than happy to do that, but then they would start clamouring and complaining that MLAs were jumping the vaccine queue. You cannot win. The point I make in thanking the Minister —”
“There is an argument for those people who cannot wear them because they are claustrophobic. Instead of wearing a face mask, perhaps they could be given a visor that would, at least, give them some protection. There is an argument there, and it is a fair discussion. We certainly cannot stigmatise them. However, we need to go after those people who are not wearing a face mask.”
“An individual will not be fined again if they are a repeat offender but could face summary dealings. It is quite a leap from a fine of just £100 to suddenly finding yourself facing summary dealings or appearing in court. Some people are habitual non-mask wearers, and that is something that we need to be aware of. <BR /> <BR />The whole issue of face masks is extremely complex. I apologise because I cannot remember who said it, but somebody said that we should not stigmatise those who cannot wear face masks because of a medical condition. That is absolutely right; we should not do that, but we certainly should go after those people who can wear face masks but deliberately do not. It is important that we all buy into that, because this is a societal issue and we need to wear face masks.”
“When we bring out regulations, they come out quickly and some of them are not as clear as they should be on paper. The police are fighting a difficult battle in that regard. <BR /> <BR />The amendments that we are talking about today are largely redundant because many of them will be overhauled on Friday. I do not want to keep on talking about redundant amendments purely for the sake of throwing an insult or having a go at somebody. We can have a good discussion, but they are slightly redundant. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No. 4 to the face coverings regulations throws up an interesting dilemma — the Minister mentioned it earlier — around the fine for not wearing a face covering when you should, which is £200, or £100 if it is paid within 14 days.”
“I am going to take on board what the Principal Deputy Speaker said, and I am not going down that rabbit hole. <BR /> <BR />The point that I was making was that, of course, enforcement is not just a Justice issue; it involves the Health, Communities, Infrastructure, Economy and Finance Departments, and enforcing regulations is important. They are a tool. I agree with what Ms Dillon said earlier, which was repeated by Mr Sheehan, about the enforcement stance. It should not just be about enforcement but about encouragement and giving information so that people understand what is and what is not expected of them, particularly with regard to face coverings. <BR /> <BR />It is right that the police are criticised when they get it wrong or when they are not consistent in their approach, but it is not fair to criticise them for the sake of it.”
“You throw out questions like: "Were you asked?", "Was it an email?" or "Was it a letter?". I was using a scatter approach, the Minister has answered, and I will accept what she says, as all of us in the House should do. <BR /> <BR />I will give way to the Member.”
“Sometimes, as an MLA, you use a scatter approach.”
“I will give way to the Minister if she wishes to reply.”
“Thank you, Minister. I have asked that question on multiple occasions, and I think that this is the first time that you have said, "No, it's not accurate". If you are saying that you were not asked in writing or in person by the Executive to head it up, I will say sorry.”
“<BR /> <BR />Having genuinely thanked the Minister, I must say that I remain disappointed that she did not, when asked to by the Executive, head up the enforcement and compliance working group. I accept that that is not just a Justice issue and that it involves Health, Communities, Infrastructure —.”
“I thank the Justice Minister for moving the amendments, some of which she brought to the Executive as proposals and papers. It is right that she moves them today. I wish that other Ministers would do the same. Some have brought papers to the Executive, which were then moved for them by the Health Minister while their colleagues chirped and complained from the sidelines. We have collective responsibility here; our Health Minister, our Justice Minister, our junior Ministers and the Communities Minister have all moved amendments. We all need to be mindful of what things were like at the start of the pandemic and what we, as MLAs, were like as we tried to keep up with what we were trying to achieve.”
“It is good to come back to this debate. I am always mindful, when we look back to when the pandemic started, of how fast-flowing things were and how we had to make decisions extremely quickly. Multiple MLAs have talked about those unprecedented and extraordinary times and the extraordinary measures that we all had to take. We had to change the way in which we worked in the Assembly to keep up with the pandemic. We gave considerable leeway to the Executive because of the threat that we faced from COVID-19; the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, the Education Minister, the Economy Minister, the Infrastructure Minister and the Finance Minister were all given considerable leeway with regard to scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />I am happy to give the Justice Minister the same leeway today with regard to scrutiny.”
“Minister, I kept my questions local because I knew that you were standing in. As you know, local constituent Jon Medlow has been working hard with volunteers to clean the River Bann. I believe that you might have met him. Does the Minister have any plans to give financial aid in order to allow volunteers like Jon and other groups to carry on that important work?”
“I thank the Minister for a really useful statement. I apologise if I am straying into the operational side, but I would like to hear her view on this, although I appreciate that she may not be able to go into detail. As you know, a lot of cross-border crime is organised by paramilitaries: financial crime, illicit drugs, excise fraud and human trafficking. How will the JATF coordinate with our own paramilitary task force and feed in to the action plan on paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime?”
“It is good to hear the Minister say that people are one of her priorities; quite rightly so. Although not a statutory responsibility of the Prisoner Ombudsman, will the Minister support the ombudsman's request to look at the staffing level of night custody officers at Her Majesty's Prison Maghaberry?”
“The reality is that nobody is even talking about them.”
“We did not get them to join us when we tried to come up with a legacy mechanism, which they do not support. The Stormont House Agreement is failing because the victims do not support it. Many will scream at me and say, "Well, you are saying that because you are a unionist", and I will throw back at them that there is a Bloody Sunday family member who does not support the Stormont House Agreement's legacy mechanisms. Go to her, and tell her that she is wrong. <BR /> <BR />We need to come together and come up with something that works. It must be victim-centred. To be victim-centred, it must include the victims. We cannot deal with legacy one public inquiry at a time. Victims from across this country and these islands look at us and ask, "When will somebody help me to get justice and truth for my family member?".”
“I start by condemning the callous and brutal murder of Pat Finucane. It is truly a stain on our shared past. This should be a sombre Matter of the Day; it should not be used as an opportunity to hurl insults across the Chamber or to use victims to score political points. There are no winners or losers here. Hundreds if not thousands of victims across the United Kingdom, Ireland and further afield still wait for truth and justice, including my family. Nobody is looking at their case. Nobody is promoting the small man: the one who was murdered, is long forgotten and whose name does not slip off your tongue. <BR /> <BR />We have failed victims. Every one of us in the Chamber has failed victims. The Westminster Government have failed victims. The Irish Government have failed victims. We did not consult or speak to victims.”
“Thank you, Minister, for your detailed answers. Could you expand slightly and let us know what role the Department for the Economy and the Department for Communities will have in any recovery plan/framework?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. I also thank him for his frank and honest answers and his decisive action in ordering a public inquiry. The Minister will know that this will cause deep concern to patients, past and present, in the urology service. Even this debate may cause them concern. Can the Minister give a commitment to patients in the Southern Trust that the urology service is safe and that they are receiving the appropriate treatment?”
“Domestic abuse is not a stand-alone thing; it just moves into and blurs with other offences. I believe that a victims of crime commissioner can cover in the long term the role that a domestic abuse commissioner would cover. <BR /> <BR />This proposed new clause covers the medium term. It covers the first seven years so that we can have oversight in order to make sure that it is working. That is because this is new legislation, and we need to make sure that it is doing exactly what it is designed to do. We need an independent person to look at it in order to make sure that it is doing what it is designed to do. <BR /> <BR />I will support amendment No 26. I cannot support amendment No 25, unfortunately.”
“Again, we will support that, but I will be sympathetic to the Minister if she brings forward any amendments to that. <BR /> <BR />The last amendment that I want to feed in to is amendment No 23. That is another proposed new clause, which is on independent oversight. People said this before, and I will say it again: we had lots of people who wanted a domestic abuse commissioner. They will be incredibly disappointed that they will not get one, and I accept that. Some Members will know that I want a victims of crime commissioner, because domestic abuse fits into crime of all shapes and sizes. It bleeds into financial crime, denial of rights and of freedom of movement, false imprisonment, grievous bodily harm, attempted murder and, in extremes, it gets into murder.”
“The Chair already said this, and I said it at the time, and those two things are the words "annually" and "mandatory". We would have to provide training annually. How we would do that in order to create less pressure on the organisations is something that has to be thought through, but it has to be done annually and it must be mandatory for those people who deal with domestic abuse on a day-to-day basis. <BR /> <BR />However, the reality is that every organisation would need to be trained from the very top to the very bottom. So, in the police, it would need to be from the Chief Constable all the way down to the new recruit. They would need to have an understanding of how this works, and then, the second tier of training would be for those people who will end up as experts on the subject, so to speak, on domestic abuse.”