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 23 of 30.
“Did it emanate from somebody who refused to wear a mask, somebody who refused to wash their hands or somebody who went into a crowded space and passed the virus on to somebody who works in the hospital? We do not know. We are surmising. That is all that we can do until we get the results of the investigation. <BR /> <BR />I want to ensure that the commentary around this does not demoralise the staff in Craigavon Area Hospital. I have spoken to some of them, and some of them feel demoralised. More than 4,000 people work in Craigavon Area Hospital doing a Herculean job. That is clinical and non-clinical staff: doctors and nurses, cleaners and porters. They work day and night. I do not want to demoralise them, but I agree with the Member that we have to get to the bottom of the outbreak.”
“Sadly, we have had an outbreak with disastrous outcomes. We all feel for those who have lost their lives and for their families. As we have said, there is a level 3 serious adverse incident investigation being initiated. The Member says that it has not yet started, and that is a worry. However, to be really honest, I am slightly more worried about making sure that we contain the outbreak. Yes, the investigation is important; yes, we need to find out the reasons why; yes, there needs to be learning account. However, as we stand here right now, there needs to be a curtailment of the outbreak to save lives. If we can save lives, we can deal with the issues afterwards. <BR /> <BR />Where did the outbreak emanate from? The answer is that we just do not know.”
“What am I trying to say? I am trying to say that the staff in that hospital have made a huge effort to protect the people in that area and in Northern Ireland more widely.”
“<BR /> <BR />At the height of this COVID pandemic, it is worthwhile noting that Craigavon Area Hospital dealt with more patients than the Nightingale hospital. Labelled as having an ICU with impressive recovery rates, they are a trusted COVID service deliverer. They set up two emergency departments, respiratory and non-respiratory, in order to provide high levels of care and stop the spread of COVID. It was focused, it was diligent, it was deliberate, it was rigid and it worked.”
“I thank you, Mr Speaker, and also other Members here, for the kind words of support in the face of the threats that I have received, which I pay little attention to. I would like to thank the Minister for yet again being in the Assembly to listen to the debate. Finally, I would like to thank John for tabling this debate because it is important and it is a microcosm of what could happen in Northern Ireland if we do not adhere to the health regulations that are being put before us by the Executive. <BR /> <BR />Without a doubt, what is going on in Craigavon Area Hospital is of real concern. These are life and death issues that we are talking about. We are not just talking about an issue with infection control; we are talking about people who are dying, families who are grieving and trust that is being damaged.”
“Having received another phone call this morning from the police outlining a new threat against me from the south-east Antrim UDA because I dared challenge them about their drug activities in that area, I ask the Minister to confirm absolutely that any of those people who are arrested for drug offences will not find themselves in a separated prison regime?”
“Pat, you are right. I will finish. The tenor of what I have said has been argumentative — I get that — but I have a real, fundamental problem with the fact that, at this time, we are still sniping at each other. We are all in defensive mode, and I accept that I am too. We are in defensive mode, because people took us down that road. However, it was not our Health Minister who took us down that road. People need to step back. I am happy to step back if others step back. People need to account for themselves and for what they did to exacerbate this health crisis.”
“Just a minute, Pat. I have said that to this side of the House, but I look to the other side of the House. How embarrassed must you be talking about these regulations when your leader — your deputy First Minister — has been called before the police to account for her actions with regard to COVID regulations. If the police find that she is guilty of any wrongdoing, she must resign, because we cannot pile bodies higher due to COVID-19 because of the actions of Michelle O'Neill. Get the moral courage to tell her that. I will get the moral courage, and I will tell her. Pat.”
“Just a minute. As an MP, he must be careful, because he is an influencer and he has damaged our message. For reference, Sammy can put a mask on, go into a shop, buy an ice cream, step outside, take off the mask and eat his ice cream. It is P1 common sense. That is the fundamental problem.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. She is right: the crux of the problem is that some of our politicians have given ammunition to the people who are trying to undermine our Health Minister. However, I say this — in the most gentlest way — to my friend, and to all those on this side of the House: Sammy Wilson is a disgrace. He is an utter disgrace for the way in which he has undermined our health message. He has an opinion —.”
“If, by wearing a face mask, I stop any elderly people being frightened or concerned, I will wear one. I say this to everybody: it is a matter of discipline; have it in your pocket; put it on when you need to; show some discipline; wear a face mask. <BR /> <BR />We have talked about messaging. Everybody is absolutely right. I do not think that I can argue with anyone here about the messaging not being right. Some of the decisions that are coming from the Executive are confusing, but, please, everybody, do not focus your eyes on the Health Minister. Focus on the Executive, where we all have a Minister, and on the Executive Office who should be driving —.”
“Others will be looking at their dereliction of duty. There are some, and I have pointed one out. <BR /> <BR />There are many who will complain about the regulations, and they have the right to complain. Everybody has a right to complain. Everybody has a right to give a point of view. It is easy to create a scenario to unpick the regulations. We could all do it, and that is what people are doing. They are creating outlandish scenarios purely to unpick the regulations. There are those who do not like wearing face masks. I do not like wearing a face mask. There are those who will say that face masks do not help. I disagree. I will be clear: if, by wearing a face mask, I stop just one person — just one person — from getting sick, I will wear a face mask.”
“— the parties turned their noses to the wall. <BR /> <BR />At the end of this crisis, Robin Swann will be able to stand tall, euphemistically.”
“Pat, thank you for your support of the Ulster Unionist Party. It is always very welcome. <BR /> <BR />I will add to what my colleague said. We now have the Health Minister having to move these regulations, whereas once it was the two junior Ministers. The Executive Office, with four Ministers, therefore no longer take responsibility for this, but the Health Minister does. As has been said, a lot of these regulations come from the Executive, and they are proposed by the Executive Office. Thank goodness that the Ulster Unionist Party climbed out of the trenches and over the parapets and took up the Health portfolio while the rest of —”
“Not just yet, Pat. In a wee while. <BR /> <BR />He has taken the criticism in here, online and elsewhere. He has fronted up at the media briefings. He filled the gap when the First Minister and the deputy First Minister had a spat and could not. Moreover, he has done all of that while he deals with the legacy of the crisis in our health service. <BR /> <BR />Now I find out that the Health Minister sits on the Executive enforcement working group while the Justice Minister does not. Let this sink in: during this unprecedented crisis, the Justice Minister does not sit on the enforcement working group. That laissez-faire approach to COVID-19 by the Justice Minister is genuinely shameful, and people need to be calling her out for it. Not only should she be on that working group but she should be chairing it. Pat, I will give way to you now.”
“Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. You were speaking into my bad ear. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister, Robin Swann, for being here today. I do not care whether people think that I am here to protect Robin Swann. I will say, and I will say it with facts, that Robin Swann as a Minister has been in the Chamber far more than any other Minister. He has answered questions for oral answer far more than any other Minister. He has responded to motions far more than any other Minister. He has attended Adjournment debates more than any other Minister. He has given detailed answers. He has taken —.”
“Therefore, the question is: what has the Minister done and what measures has she brought before the Executive COVID enforcement working group, which I believe she should be heading and attending?”
“I genuinely thank the Minister for coming along because I know that she has a lot going on at this moment in time. I totally agree with her that these COVID breaches have their genesis in antisocial behaviour in the Holylands, which has been going on for an awful long time. Although I am not from Belfast, I have watched the residents being absolutely tortured by what is going on there. <BR /> <BR />I note that the DOJ did a review of antisocial behaviour in 2018, but we are still waiting for the output of that. I also note that Part 5 of the Criminal Justice (NI) Order 2008 allows for the police to stop antisocial behaviour due to excess alcohol in an area listed by a council, yet it has never used it. The Minister could legislate for public space petition orders, but she has not done so.”
“I have heard a lot of people say that COVID does not respect borders, and I absolutely agree with that: it does not respect borders. Considering the free movement of people on this island and off this island, on the rest of the British Isles, surely the Minister should be arguing for an all-islands approach — as in a British Isles approach — to deal with COVID-19.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I absolutely understand the constraints that he is under. However, the Minister will know that working-class families and children in the non-selective education sector in Lurgan, who deserve the same standard of education as those in the selective sector, do not see a two-year post-primary school — the only one in the UK, I must add — as a way to improve those children's educational attainment. Nor will bussing them to Portadown help them. Is the Minister willing, within the next month, to meet parents of children from that school to discuss the issue, free from politicians and the spin that, in some way, it is damaging the Dickson plan?”
“It will take resource and money, but it is the right thing to do. <BR /> <BR />There is no place for racism in Northern Ireland. There never was, there never is and there never will be. It is important to future-proof our society and put a firewall in place between our young people and racism. This is not just for the Executive Office; this is cross-cutting. All Departments have a part to play. It is as much an issue for Justice, Economy and Education as it is for the Executive Office. There is no point in trying to package this in one place. Everybody needs to be involved, take ownership and be a part of it. We support the motion.”
“They are paramedics. They are clinical and non-clinical staff. They are doctors and surgeons. Without them, we would be a poorer place, so we need to ensure that our black, Asian and other ethnic-minority people are valued, cherished, supported and protected. We need to do that through legislation, a racial equality strategy, an anti-racism ethos, education and civic society with better understanding. We must address it through our justice system. I am disheartened that we are not doing more. We need data to inform any strategy. The final draft report on the review of ethnic monitoring gave a list of recommendations, including appointing an independent adviser on race equality; setting up an ethnic monitoring unit; extending fair employment legislation; and enacting a public-sector equality duty. It is not hard to do.”
“You are in denial, if you say that you are not. <BR /> <BR />I have been very lucky in my life in that I have lived in many countries around the world. I spent a lot of time in Africa — in Uganda, Sierra Leone, Kenya and Somalia. While I was there, I immersed myself in the culture — wonderful, rich cultures; wonderful, rich and giving people. It has broadened my horizons. It has given me a wider left and right of arc to understand why they may wish to come here to eke out a better life than they might have in some other parts of the world. It has allowed me to see people as people. That is exactly what they are: nothing more, nothing less. <BR /> <BR />In Northern Ireland, black, Asian and other ethnic-minority people work in our factories, shops, garages and hospitality sector. They are in our care homes and our hospitals.”
“I rise to address this important motion and support it. I shall keep my comments general, as opposed to getting into detail, due to the time. The fact that we are still talking about discrimination due to somebody's colour or ethnic background is really quite depressing. Dealing with it is long overdue. I simply cannot fathom why some individuals in our society feel that they have a right to treat their fellow human being in such a derogatory way through intimidation, discrimination, threats of violence and violence on the basis purely of the colour of their skin. Of course, those people will argue a variety of reasons for their bigotry and will use terms like, "I have black friends". However, the reality is that, if you treat someone differently purely because of the colour of their skin or ethnic background, you are a racist.”
“We know that. We know what we are trying to achieve here. I am happy to support the motion and the amendment.”
“I am saying that deterrents against attacks against our police officers, prison officers, emergency services workers and nurses do work and must be seen to work. People want to see that. They want to see our front-line services protected, but they want to see teachers, young people, disabled people and older people protected as well. We really have to deal with the sentencing framework. <BR /> <BR />I also note the First Minister's call for those who disappeared their victims to be refused parole unless they disclose the whereabouts of their victims. I absolutely stand by that. That is something that we must address now, and it should be retrospective, so that the people who disappeared Columba McVeigh and Robert Nairac should be returned to jail, if they are still about. <BR /> <BR />Sentencing is always going to be emotive.”
“The Ulster Unionist Party fed into the sentencing review, and we noted the five purposes of sentencing, which are listed as punishment, protection of the public, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation. We do not see prisons as a warehouse for offenders, but we do believe that rehabilitation seems to have trumped everything else. At times, sentencing must be about the protection of the public, and it must be about deterrence. The principles of sentencing — proportionality, transparency, fairness and the use of punishment sparingly — inject a bias against harsh custodial sentences. We have a concern in regard to that last principle. <BR /> <BR />What am I saying? I am saying that deterrents work.”
“Former Royal Marine Ciarán Maxwell, who was found guilty of committing terrorist offences in Northern Ireland but was tried in Great Britain, got 18 years in jail. Had he been tried here in Northern Ireland it is likely that he would have got 10 years and would have been out after five. That is unacceptable. The 50% licensing, or 50% parole, for extended custodial sentences is partly the cause of that.”
“Each year, 50% of mainstream teachers and 90% of special needs teachers are attacked, and 45% are verbally abused. Everyone, not just emergency workers, expects and is entitled to go to work free from the threat of physical, mental or verbal violence. <BR /> <BR />The issue is not about sentencing for attacks on emergency services; for me, our sentencing framework is of genuine concern. Death or injury through drink- or drug-driving needs to be treated with severity so that it acts as a deterrent. I know that some people say that deterrents do not work: I do not agree. Attacks on children must be seen as an aggravating factor. It is the same with older people. The sentence must reflect that. Terrorism sentencing must be addressed.”
“I thank the Members for tabling this important motion for discussion. <BR /> <BR />I fully understand the spirit of the motion and what it is trying to achieve and will support it, as does the Ulster Unionist Party, but I am uneasy about categorising any sort of victim. We must protect our blue-light services — the police, the fire service, the Ambulance Service and the army operating under Operation Helvetic, which is a blue-light service — as well as our nurses, paramedics and prison officers. An attack on them is utterly reprehensible, and any sentence must match the crime to act as a deterrent. However, what about school teachers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, the old, the disabled and our children? Are they less deserving of stiff, strong deterrent sentences?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. I guess that the ministerial code is becoming quite an important part of this. If you look at section 28A(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, you will see that there is nothing in there that states that you have to wait for legislative change before you can amend the ministerial code. You can change the ministerial code now. You can put a draft before the Assembly to allow Members to see what it will look like. Doing that would add to the Bill. Can you see the concerns? The more we dig into this, the more that it smacks of there being more scrutiny required, if we are pulling out things like that.”
“I thank the Member for giving way, especially because he has given way quite a few times already. <BR /> <BR />I take at face value his belief that the legislation will keep that collegiate Executive, and I accept that in good faith. Our Executive have been doing a good job, but they have been underpinned by a ministerial code that is quite expansive. The cross-cutting issue is quite expansive in there. The junior Minister must agree that, when the Bill is passed, paragraph 2.4 will have to be changed to be less expansive, and its being less expansive, may lead to more conflict in the Executive. That is the point that I was trying to make.”
“No, I will not. Sit down and take your medicine. <BR /> <BR />I think that controversial issues are coming before the Executive, and they will try to distance themselves from them. For example, the armed forces commissioner, the Irish language commissioner and abortion legislation. Just watch and see people dive for cover when they start coming out, as they try to hide and distance themselves. There is not a chance that I will support this legislation, not a chance that my party will support this legislation, but there is every chance, in the future, that I will point out the folly of this legislation.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. It is a really important point, and I hope that the junior Minister can address it in the winding-up speech. It is incredibly important. I believe that this is a dangerous carve-up between the DUP and Sinn Féin, aided and abetted by some of the other parties, without looking into it in any depth. They are doing this because they want to distance themselves from some controversial issues that are about to come before the Executive.”
“That raises the prime question that has never been answered: why are we rushing this through? What is behind the rushing through of this legislation? Somebody needs to answer and say, "This is why we had to do it", because if we were able to operate for six months with Ministers making decisions outside the Executive, why do we now have to rush it through?”
“<BR /> <BR />The junior Minister's assertion that every Minister is stuck in a quandary because of the Buick judgement, which means that they have to bring all decisions before the Executive, is just not true. We have had an Executive for six months, and Ministers have not brought all the issues before the Executive. In fact, the Health Minister reduced the ban on gay and bisexual men giving blood from one year to three months. He did not bring that before the Executive, and not a single Minister raised an issue with it. That could be viewed as being controversial, as it was controversial enough for previous DUP Ministers to take it to court. <BR /> <BR />It is a fallacy to say that, for the past six months, we have been running contrary to the Buick judgement.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill is a U-turn by the DUP on the core argument that it made to its electorate for its being able to share office with Sinn Féin. At St Andrew's, the DUP said that it had fixed the Belfast Agreement, and stopping Ministers from going on solo runs was one of the core tenets for it saying that it had done so. Yet, here it is, doing a U-turn and backtracking on that very principle. <BR /> <BR />Section 2.4 of ministerial code of conduct is nearly a direct extraction from the St Andrew's Agreement — nearly a direct extraction — and yet section 2.4, which was designed to keep the bar low for cross-cutting measures, is going to be overturned. I am in no doubt whatsoever that, after the summer recess, we will have the ministerial code before the Assembly, and section 2.4 will have been changed.”
“This Bill is bad legislation, and there are people in the Assembly who know that it is bad legislation and are still going to vote for it. Shame on them. It has not been scrutinised to the level that it should have been. MLAs have not had the opportunity to question all the experts about it. We do not know the effects of the legislation in the medium to long term. No idea. <BR /> <BR />It will create a combative Executive. When pretty petty decisions are made outside the Executive, it will allow other Ministers to participate in a pile on. That is dysfunctional government. It will allow Ministers to step outside of collective government to get themselves away from any controversial decisions that are being made.”
“However, during yesterday's debate, I had to bite my lip somewhat when I was accused of being insulting, when my moral integrity was questioned, when MLAs made the assertion that 11 minutes of scrutiny at a Committee was good enough and when MLAs questioned the whole planning part of the Bill but absolutely ignored my amendments. How dare I change my mind. How dare I, as an MLA, say, "Actually, I got it wrong, and I've changed my mind". How dare I question a Bill that is a carve-up between two parties. How dare I. <BR /> <BR />When I take part in debates on important matters like this, I genuinely try to hold the hand of friendship out to everybody here and listen to the points that they are trying to make. I genuinely try. Let me make it clear, however: do not confuse friendship with weakness.”
“It is a short Bill but a far-reaching one. We should not really look at how few pages or how few clauses it has but at the effect that it will have. I thought yesterday's was a good debate. It was an important debate, and people got their points across well. I will not rehearse any of the arguments from yesterday, because the outcome was clear and I accept what the outcome was.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. The Minister mentioned the legal advice that he has received that makes it absolutely clear: will he release the legal advice, so that I and everyone else can see it and be absolutely clear? That would help. If the Minister had done that earlier, maybe we would not even be having this debate. My question to the Minister is this: will he release the legal advice?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Can we make sure that it is on the record that that scrutiny at the Committee lasted 11 minutes?”
“We have set in motion a chain of events that could be worse for us all. Let us not think one step or two steps ahead. We need to think three and four steps ahead. Let us not think that this is about one party abusing the system or about another party abusing the system. Let us not even say that it is a deliberate abuse of the system; sometimes it can be absolutely accidental where somebody brings in legislation or something that they do not know the repercussions of in the years to come. So, let us future-proof. For me, right now as I stand here, the St Andrews Agreement future-proofs how we operate in the Executive, and, if we are going to change that, we need to change that with more scrutiny than we have given it now. I commend my amendments.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. You caught me just as I was finishing, but I will make a couple of points. I do not know and have never met Mr Bullick, but, if he is bringing up something that makes us look and stop and take check, it is worthwhile looking and stopping and taking check, regardless of whether he was here before or will be here after. In the same way, if Peter Robinson were to come out and say something, we would say that he is a man who knows the system and would listen to him. Let us not just discount people. <BR /> <BR />As for the three-person block, there is not one. That three-person mechanism is to force a vote in the Executive. That is what it does. It forces a vote in the Executive, but let us future-proof that. In five years, when unionists or the DUP do not have a majority, what happens?”
“It cannot be a difficult amendment to support, unless there is an ulterior motive to force this through at short notice. I hope that there is not. <BR /> <BR />I apologise for rambling a bit and for the paper shuffling. This is a complex issue, and I do not have all the answers. I am not a lawyer, but I would like to look at this in far more detail than we have been able to so far. That is a fair ask. It is fair to ask the Assembly to scrutinise this further.”
“I have trust issues with many of the political parties here. I know that people look at me and have trust issues with me. Again, I accept that. Yet, these safeguards in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as amended at St Andrews, help to create safeguards where trust was not there. Therefore, it is pretty simple. The substantive part of the Bill that deals with the Department for Infrastructure and the Minister for Infrastructure so that she can make decisions can go through. Although it has problems, planning has safeguards. All that I am saying is that the proposed new paragraph 8, which allows Ministers to make decisions without bringing them to the Executive, should not go through. It should be taken out, revisited and, if necessary, brought forward at a later stage when it can be given full scrutiny. It is a simple amendment.”
“My amendments aim to take away those parts of it that give unfettered powers, which could be, at times, unfettered powers, to individual Ministers. I said earlier that I can accept that some people want to speed up legislation. That is absolutely worthy, and I agree with that, but those people who want to speed up legislation normally want to speed up legislation that they support, and the legislation that they do not support, they are happy to keep in the long grass. Scrutiny stops that. Scrutiny allows legislation to be viewed and to be put out, and when it is put out, it is done so with collective responsibility from an Executive — our Executive. Our Executive, which make rules. <BR /> <BR />Trust is important in government. At times, we do not have trust. I sense and feel it here.”
“I thank both Members. I accept a lot of what you are saying, Mr Storey, and the debate about abortion is, I guess, for another day, but I accept your point wholeheartedly, and I hold no malice about that. You are right: there is conflicting legal advice, and that is why I am saying that we need to delay this process so that we can scrutinise that conflicting legal advice. MLAs would have the ability to speak to experts and would get legal advice. They could question not just the intentions of Bill but its repercussions. We can all write a Bill that has a wonderful aim, but it may not necessarily always end up with that aim. That is why it is so important that this Bill is given the extra scrutiny. I will say this again: I am not trying to wreck the Bill.”
“Physical courage is easy; moral courage is extremely difficult. It is what you apply. It is about yourself. Apply moral courage. If, after all those Members have spoken, you have a doubt in the back of you mind, that doubt in the back of your mind should be saying to you, "Let's delay for more scrutiny".”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. You have articulated very well the point that I was aiming to make. What is the rush? We have time to look at it. We have been dealing with the issue since January, and nobody felt the need to rush it through quickly in February, for example. We have let it go. All of a sudden, it is being rushed through, right in the middle of a pandemic and right in the middle of a crisis where our First Minister and deputy First Minister will not even give an interview together at the minute. We are rushing it through. I implore all Members of the Assembly — I look at Members and think that, when they do their business here, they act absolutely honourably — that you must have moral courage on the issue. Moral courage: the hardest piece of courage that you can have.”