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 24 of 30.
“As I stand here, I see people whose eyes might be glazing over because this is all very technical and pretty boring and they have already made their mind up anyway. That is fine, because maybe I am wrong. However, if I am wrong, what is the rush?”
“<BR /> <BR />Ministers have already been reported to the Commissioner for Standards over their behaviour. The Executive Office Committee has asked for legal advice about holding an inquiry into the behaviour of Ministers. People make mistakes, yet the Bill intends to give Ministers more power. That can be abused. I do not want to see it abused. I am not talking about one party or the other; I am talking about all Ministers. I do not want to see any Minister abusing their power, and the way to stop them abusing their power, either deliberately or accidentally, is to have a scrutiny mechanism that is already in the Executive and can be found in the St Andrews Agreement. It is utter madness. <BR /> <BR />What if I am wrong?”
“At a time when we need more scrutiny, it gives us less scrutiny. We are allowing the Bill through without proper scrutiny and with no idea of its effects in the next five years. At a time when the Executive need more scrutiny, we are putting a Bill through that reduces scrutiny. Scrutiny is a good thing. Some people say that, because of the system that we have now, our legislation is slow. That is a fair argument. We want to speed up legislation, but it has to be good legislation. There is no point in having speedy legislation if it is no good. If it is not future-proofed, it is not good legislation. Scrutiny helps to produce good legislation. The system that we have now is a good system to scrutinise Ministers and to prevent them going on solo runs.”
“That is why we should get rid of subsections (8) and (9), which change that. They do change it, no matter which way you look at it. <BR /> <BR />There is also the question of collective responsibility. There are many contentious issues on which Ministers will have to take decisions. What has been really important is that our Executive have all stood together in making those decisions: collective responsibility. Now, however, we could go down a road where a Minister will be left on his own to make a decision. Even if he brings it to the Executive for discussion, other Ministers could say, "Yes, that is fine, but it has nothing to do with me. I don't support it. I can step out of this office and attack you every time you say something". <BR /> <BR />The Bill has raised the bar for cross-cutting issues.”
“Both ended up in court, and both were brought back again because of what was agreed at St Andrews and is in legislation. It is awful thing that one Minister has to bring another Minister to court in order to get them to row back on a decision. If we put the Bill through, we will see more of that. What Minister would not look for any loophole to push forward what they need for their Ministry? It is natural to us all. However, what was agreed at St Andrews holds them back on that. It holds us all back on that. It is as much a safeguard for our society as it is for the Minister himself. Ministers are not infallible; they can make wrong decisions. However, if their decisions are scrutinised in the Executive, they can have a sanity check on their decisions. That is a positive.”
“I have made it clear that I am opening myself up to criticisms, but everybody knows that the issue that we have with the St Andrews Agreement is how we elect our First and deputy First Ministers. That is the main issue. We can look at things and say. "That's good" or "That's not bad". It would be pretty awful of us or any political party to just say that every thing is bad. We all have the ability to look at things and say, "I could take that and that, but I don't want that". We do it when we are buying a car; I am sure that we can do it with legislation. <BR /> <BR />The Bill, we believe, dilutes the safeguards that we got in St Andrews. Others can disagree, and I get that. We will hear from others saying that they disagree, but I think that it dilutes it. Since 2007, there have been few solo runs. I think that there have been two.”
“They may not be controversial now but may be a little while down the road. <BR /> <BR />I am opening myself up to criticism. I do not mind, because we did not support all elements of the St Andrews Agreement, but this is a good element that we are now about to overturn. It is the main plank of the St Andrews Agreement, which was to stop Ministers, deliberately or not, going on solo runs and deciding for themselves what they would do. It has been well documented that the late Martin McGuinness got rid of the 11-plus, pretty much on the last day before the Assembly collapsed: that could be viewed as going on a solo run. This part of the St Andrews Agreement brokered by the DUP and Sinn Féin was a good piece of legislation, and we are looking for it to stay.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. It is a pointed question in the way that you have put it across. The answer is, very pointedly, yes. We are in agreement, because we have analysed it and have decided that we have gone in the wrong direction with regard to subsections (8) and (9). As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, the fault lies with me for not making sure that my Members understood what is going on. To me, subsection (8) conflicts with section 28A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which outlines what the ministerial code should be. At the end of this, the ministerial code will have to be changed to meet this Bill, because they conflict. Some of the issues that have to be discussed at the Executive may not be cross-cutting today but might be in a year.”
“Just a minute. <BR /> <BR />I have gone through my life looking at decisions that I have made, and, as the situation changed, I have had to change my decisions. It is the right thing to do. It is the morally courageous thing to do. It is what I am having to do here today.”
“We can contend one way or another, but it still takes me back to the start of what I said: if we, as an Assembly, cannot stop and reanalyse a decision that we have made, we are lame ducks.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. If he wants to play the man instead of the ball, he is more than welcome to do so, and I am happy to accept it. The reality is this, however: did he agree it? Did he agree to this legislation or did he agree that there should be legislation? That is a question for you, and you can raise it up the line. Did Ministers agree that there should be legislation or did they agree that it was to be this legislation?”
“yet the ministerial code sets out a whole list of things that must be looked at. Some of them are not cross-cutting. Some of them are pretty bland:”
“That is straight from the Bill itself. <BR /> <BR />If subsection (8) conflicts with the Belfast Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act, it certainly conflicts with the ministerial code. As I said, subsection (8) states:”
“This is about cross-cutting issues, not necessarily immediately but that may arise in future: six months on, a year on, two years on, five years on. In my mind, subsection (8) is therefore absolutely in conflict with sections 19 and 20 of strand one of the Belfast Agreement and subsection (3) of section 20 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. You need only read the explanatory and financial memorandum to see that. I apologise to Members for shuffling papers, but there is an awful lot of complexity in the Bill. The tenet of what I am saying here today is that the Bill is so complex that we need time to scrutinise it. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph 10(i) of the explanatory and financial memorandum states:”
“"Subsection (3)" is a reference to section 20(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph 19 of strand one of the Belfast Agreement clearly states, however:”
“I think that there is enough within the planning system that will give us scrutiny of the Department for Infrastructure. My proposed amendments therefore do not touch on those issues in any shape or form. They would allow the particular issues that address the Buick judgement for the Department for Infrastructure to go through, and that would then give MLAs time and space to look at the other aspects of the Bill: the other aspects that I am attempting to amend. <BR /> <BR />There are three amendments in total. The first amendment is a paving amendment. I am not going to address that, because it is purely about numbering in the Bill. Amendment No 3, which is about subsection (9), is consequential to amendment No 2, which is about subsection (8). I will read out subsection (8) to you:”
“Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am just trying to give the context. I stood there and did not vote against accelerated passage. I am laying out where we are in regards to that. <BR /> <BR />Let me be clear: to be really honest with you all and with the Assembly now, I think that the Bill should have been paused. I think that it should be paused, and we should put it back into the system and go through the full scrutiny process. That is what, I think, we should do. However, it has been moved, and we are moving forward. I do not want to see my amendments as being a wrecker to the Bill, because I think that there are things in the Bill that we need to deal with. The issues around the Department for Infrastructure are fair wind.”
“On 1 July, our eyes were turned to Bobby Storey's funeral; an issue that we are still dealing with. We were focused on COVID-19. I genuinely believe that, because of that, many of us, including me, missed this. I admit fault. I made a mistake. I will be absolutely clear: there are others who did not make mistakes. The Green Party certainly raised the issue, as did People Before Profit.”
“<BR /> <BR />I say this: we, as an Assembly, got it wrong when we gave the Bill accelerated passage. It could well be that the Bill is fine and that it would go through all the scrutiny mechanisms and come out with us all satisfied. However, because it has accelerated passage, we do not have the ability to do that. It is important that we scrutinise major changes to how we govern in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />At the time of the Bill's introduction, we were all focused elsewhere. It was brought before the Committee for the Executive Office on 1 July. I was not there. I was laying a wreath at Belfast City Council's Somme remembrance. I was not there to question. However, I am not even sure whether I would have seen the issues that were in front of me then, because our eyes were turned elsewhere.”
“The Executive Committee (Functions) Bill is a very short but extremely complex Bill. Its main aim and tenet is to address what came out of the Buick judgement in regards to the Department for Infrastructure, yet the Bill also covers far-reaching issues. I am no lawyer and I do not have a team of lawyers standing behind me to give me advice. In fact, I left school at 16 and have no educational qualifications whatsoever. The reality is that the Bill needs more scrutiny because it so complex and so far-reaching and delves into how we govern Northern Ireland. If, at the end of the debate, we are thinking, "Well, that is wrong. I believe in this bit but not in that. Maybe this works", there is confusion in the Assembly and, therefore, it is fair to ask for that scrutiny.”
“The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:”
“Sorry for the late notice on this, but it is important because it will help to make decisions. I hope that the junior Minister can answer this question. Paragraphs 8 and 9 at clause 1(4) include the term "a Minister". Can the junior Minister confirm that, where it says "a Minister", it refers only to the Minister for Infrastructure and does not extend to any Minister in the Executive?”
“<BR /> <BR />I will finish and say again that, in all of these amendments, clarity in everything we do and everything that we say is the most important thing.”
“There were not 30 people there, there were hundreds, and that abused our society. Many in our society are now suffering from Stockholm syndrome because they have just forgotten about it and it does not matter; they are allowed to do it. Nobody else is allowed to do it, but they can. It is absolutely shocking. <BR /> <BR />Then, to stand up and say, "Don't worry about the R number, it is not important any more because it does not fit our narrative". Yet we have just had four months of people banging on about the R number and saying that we have to get the R number down and that we have to save lives. Then, somebody says, "Ach never worry about that because we want to stop the English from coming to Northern Ireland". That is what it is all about. It is bias and bigotry, and they need to own up to it.”
“I also agree that the integrity and the credibility of the Executive Office have been seriously damaged. They have been seriously damaged by Sinn Féin, who seem to have selective amnesia because they never talk about their deliberate breach of the guidelines that they told everybody to adhere to. Groups of 30 being allowed to gather came out at 11 pm on 29 June, yet they managed to get their little cabal of 30 ready for a funeral the next day, not to mention the hundreds who followed behind it, who must have been organised well in advance. They certainly were not given the heads-up at 11 o'clock that night to be there. <BR /> <BR />When you talk about this selective amnesia, we now have a society that seems to have brushed that under the carpet because what that did abused our society. What they did at that funeral abused our society.”
“We are giving confused messages when we make statements. It is important that we have clarity.”
“In the same way, I welcome the release of restrictions on the opening of restaurants and bars, although with certain caveats, because it kick-starts the pulse of our society. Our society needs to have something to look forward to. Restrictions, restrictions, restrictions will not help us or help the mental health of our society. <BR /> <BR />I absolutely agree with the Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office: clarity is what is really important. That is about digging down to the absolute detail of everything that we put out there so that people know exactly what they can and cannot do. I guess that that is where the confusion is at the moment. People are confused because we are giving confused messages. We are giving confused messages in our guidance. We are giving confused messages in our legislation.”
“I will be rather brief. The slow drip-feed in the easing of COVID restrictions is welcome, and it is absolutely the right way to do things. We have to look at what is ahead of us and then change to meet that. It is important that we do that and that we try to analyse and listen to the advice when we do it. <BR /> <BR />The opening of museums and galleries is incredibly important so that people can go to view our history, understand our culture and see our art. If we do not have that, if we do not allow people to get out there and enjoy it and if we do not remember what we are doing this all for, what is the point? It is incredibly important, and I welcome that release of restrictions.”
“Minister, confidence is damaged: confidence in you, the deputy First Minister; confidence in the Executive Office; and confidence in the Executive. As we fight the pandemic, a lack of confidence will be terminal; it will cost lives. Will the First Minister and deputy First Minister set up an independent statutory inquiry to investigate the issue and all MLAs who deliberately breached the guidelines?”
“It means that, as we sit here trying to ignore that, when we look at the amendments and ask people to adhere to them — remember what we said: we are on 10 now, maybe going on to 12 — we are really saying to people, "You have to do that, but do you know what? We don't". <BR /> <BR />Yes, we may have a debate about this tomorrow. That will be for tomorrow. I am talking about the amendments today. The question is simple. Will Sinn Féin address the issue of the MLA who was in a room with 40 to 50 guys dressed in black and white with no social distancing, breaching amendment (No. 7)? If the answer is no, they have no credibility.”
“I acknowledge what Mr O'Dowd has said. Fair enough, I understand what you are doing. You are trying to protect your deputy First Minister and maybe even some of your Ministers and MLAs who also broke the regulations. If we want to relate this to what we are talking about here, we need only look at amendment (No. 7), where it says that no more than six people can gather in a house. What about the 45 all crammed in together in a building with no social distancing, with an MLA from the Member's party posing beside them? That is a clear breach of amendment (No. 7). We can relate to all of these. The problem is that, as we drip-feed the changes, if we do not adhere to them, it is absolutely pointless to do that. It undermines the Executive's credibility. It means they have lost integrity and moral authority.”
“The actions of Sinn Féin have trampled all over the hurt, the pain and the sacrifice of this society, and you do not have the good grace to stand up and say sorry for doing so and to make amends for it. <BR /> <BR />The hard facts are that the Executive and the Assembly grappled with the restrictions over the past four months, and I know from my colleague the Health Minister, Robin Swann, that that weighed heavily on him, as he had to make life-and-death decisions. Look at us now. What a sorry bunch we are. All that we said, all that we told — pleaded with — society to do has been undermined. Everything we say now has been undermined, and it was undermined by a deputy First Minister who simply does not care.”
“Yet, Sinn Féin drove a coach and horses through that sacrifice with an act of selfishness, arrogance and pure privilege. Words cannot express how angry and sad I am today. Many people in our society are angry and sad at what has happened.”
“As we close down services, people with cancer and other illnesses have succumbed to the ravaging of their bodies and have passed away. We did that — the Executive and the Assembly. In order to protect all our citizens — young and old, sick and healthy, working-class, middle-class, Catholics, Protestants and neither, foreign nationals, visitors, key workers, the furloughed, those who were shielding, the people frightened by a pandemic that had already cost them dearly — we curtailed people's civil liberties. We allowed the sick to die scared and alone. We stopped people mourning and going with their families on that final journey that is so important in our culture on this island. <BR /> <BR />People accepted those hardships with grace, sorrow and understanding. They lost moments that they will never get back.”
“We have to understand what we did as an Executive and an Assembly nearly four months ago, those difficult decisions that we made. <BR /> <BR />In an attempt to protect the health of our citizens from the effects of COVID-19, we have damaged the health of our citizens. Mental ill health, already at crisis levels, is now at epidemic level. Amendment (No. 7) aims to address that. In an attempt to protect our economy with furloughing, grants and support measures — all of which were needed and were welcome — we have damaged our economy. Small and medium-sized businesses find it extremely difficult to take root even with the amendments, and some may never open again. Amendment (No. 8) aims to deal with that. In order to save lives, because of the pandemic, we have cost lives.”
“These are amendment Nos 7 and 8 of , I think, 10 amendments so far; I am sure that there will be an awful lot more to the coronavirus legislation. I have not spoken before on this, because I supported the Executive and the Executive Office and trusted them when they asked us to adhere to the regulations. However, I am not sure that I can say that any more. I am not sure that I can even support the regulations any more. <BR /> <BR />The legislation was the most draconian and far-reaching possible, and the amendments ease the restrictions but do not take them away. They just give more guidelines and more restrictions that everybody has to adhere to. It is a drip feed towards getting us out of lockdown, and it is the right way to do it, if we all abide by it.”
“I thank the Minister for his very pointed answer to what was a very pointed question, and I congratulate the Minister for his leadership in taking that pragmatic decision, outside of process, to allow St John the Baptist's College to become a Key Stage 4 school. That really did transform things for a lot of people in that area. Therefore, I ask the Minister to show the same leadership and the same pragmatic thinking to allow Lurgan Junior High School to become a Key Stage 4 school so that we no longer have to send pupils to the Lurgan campus of Craigavon Senior High School, which has systemic and long-term safeguarding issues.”
“<BR /> <BR />I go back to where I started: it is right to debate this in the Chamber and to get your points of view across, no matter how popular or unpopular they are. We need to do that, and, if we have to change direction, we have to change direction. I believe that Mr Allister's amendment enables us to change direction. I think that it enables us to look at this in the long term and to create a new panel that can make a new determination. Therefore, my party and I will support the amendment.”
“Let us use it to test our ability to talk and think, and maybe to push back and postpone what we are trying to do here, in order to have the confidence, transparency and accountability that we have been lacking for quite some time. <BR /> <BR />I said it before: Mr Allister puts forward a compelling argument. Nothing stops us creating a new panel, and nothing stops us having a new determination. I am not saying that we should set aside the IFRP determination, but it certainly needs to be amendable. As an MLA, my nervousness about the motion and the nervousness of my party is that, in the months and years to come, it will be abused, we will forget the lessons that we learned in the past, and we will lose that confidence. We will lose that confidence individually and, as a House, collectively.”
“However, I have a real concern about the pay and conditions of my staff. They do not have the right pay and conditions. Their pay is scandalous. They deal with civil servants who get paid nearly twice as much as they do. <BR /> <BR />The Ulster Unionist Party's Chief Whip, who sits on the Commission, wanted to adopt a NIPSA model. That was not deemed cost-effective, but at least people were exploring other ways of doing this. I know that other parties did similarly — in fact, I think that other parties did similarly before coming up with the motion. So, it is right that the motion is before us and that we debate it and put our points across. However, let us not just throw out Mr Allister's amendment because it does not match what we have gone through and talked about.”
“So, for the last three months, when your offices have been closed and the shutters were down, nobody has seen the phone number that would enable them to call you. That is the irrational piece in all of this. <BR /> <BR />The issue has been debated at length by the Assembly Commission, and it is right to bring it before the Assembly for debate: for people to make their arguments, for people to make decisions on the basis of those arguments and to try to explore whether, through the motion or the amendment, there are other ways of achieving the same thing. <BR /> <BR />Personally, I do not need any extra expenses. My office does not need any extra expenses. I cut my cloth to meet what I have, as every other business does. I have been working quite happily since I became an MLA in 2016.”
“I sense a nervousness about the motion in the House and in wider society. We ought always to be mindful that, as an Assembly, we must have the confidence of our society. If we do not have that confidence, we will always fail. <BR /> <BR />The Independent Financial Review Panel (IFRP) determination felt flawed; it felt irrational. It felt like all MLAs were being punished because of the abuses of some. It felt like a collective punishment meted out to every single one of us. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister raised a compelling argument about abuses of the system as it stood. That resonates within the society that we represent, and we must be mindful of that. <BR /> <BR />We have looked at the ludicrous position whereby we cannot put our telephone number on our signage.”
“However, it is right and proper, and I know that I am repeating what others have said, that we look at what the Attorney General said to us when he said that he had one concern about legislative competence arising from clause 10. It is really important that we put that to bed and ensure that we get this absolutely right. If we do not, we will end up with legislation that does not work for the victims, and the victims must be important here. I am in no doubt that the Minister will look at this in great detail and will be able to report back to the House and the Justice Committee.”
“I will be very brief. I welcome the Minister's bringing this forward. It is difficult to see anybody not being in favour of getting this legislation in place to be able to support victims of domestic abuse. However, it is really important that we scrutinise this, because the last thing that we want is to bring in legislation that does not work. I am fearful, as many Members may well be, that, when you raise an issue, people think that you are bringing about a delay, but we would be doing a huge disservice if we did not raise the issues that are concerning. <BR /> <BR />I absolutely support, as does the party, the LCM, which allows us to take clauses 61 and 62 of the Westminster legislation, covering the ETJ, without a shadow of a doubt.”
“I thank the Member for giving way, and ask him a very pointed question. If a person is off sick with COVID-19, does he think it is right that, when they return to work, they are issued a written warning citing inefficiency? If he says that it is not right, then why is it right for mental health?”
“The then Health Minister said that she was the mental health champion. I also applaud Claire Sugden, who tried to sort it out when she was Justice Minister. <BR /> <BR />What am I asking you to do today? I am asking you to support the motion and our civil servants in the Prison Service. I am asking you to say that having a mental health illness is not an inefficiency. I am asking you to support a change in a policy where a written warning is not an appropriate management tool for those suffering from a mental health illness. I am asking you to say, "Mental health illness is not inefficiency". If I am saying that for the Prison Service, the reality is that I am saying it for all civil servants. Mental health illness is not inefficiency.”
“<BR /> <BR />So, for anyone to say to me that they are just civil servants and they should be treated the same as any other civil servants, I think that is pretty dismissive. Prison officers face greater mental health strains than any other Civil Service Department, yet there is no allowance for them within the inefficiency sickness absence policy that uses a written warning to stop them presenting with mental health illness lest they lose their jobs. Let me tell you that that is what is happening. Prison officers are scared to go sick with mental health illness because they are afraid of losing their jobs, and we, in this Assembly, allow it. <BR /> <BR />I applaud the Health Minister who has pledged to bring forward a mental health champion. I applaud my colleague Mike Nesbitt who asked for a mental health champion a number of years ago.”
“Not every day civil servants are threatened, not every day civil servants have urine thrown on them, not every day civil servants are assaulted, not every day civil servants encounter self-harm, not every day civil servants face abuse and threats of sexual violence, not every day civil servants face suicide, not every day civil servants go home with a personal protection weapon because they are fearful of terrorists and they are under threat — but our Prison Service do. That adds to the stress. That adds to the mental anguish. Yet, when they finally tip over the edge with a mental health illness, and they reach out for support, what do we say? "That is inefficiency". It is a scandal. I think that we can stop it. I ask people to stop it.”
“Mental health is not inefficiency. <BR /> <BR />The Northern Ireland Prison Service has the highest rate of absence than any other Department in the Civil Service, sitting at between 8% and 10% per day. We have argued many times in the Ulster Unionist Party that our Prison Service needs resilience to be able to absorb that because their job is by far the most stressful. <BR /> <BR />Many will say that the civil servants have stress all the time, but not like the Prison Service. Their job is like no other in the Civil Service.”
“If she could not do her job, why was she not dismissed on medical grounds? Why was it not medical discharge? Why inefficiency? <BR /> <BR />I will say this clear and loud, and, please, understand what I am saying, and I will say it again later: mental health illness is not inefficiency. It is not. It is a mental health illness. It is debilitating. It should be treated like any other injury, yet it is not, and I think that is shameful. <BR /> <BR />Some will argue that there must be some kind of management tool to reduce absenteeism, and I absolutely agree with that. There has to be, but when you put your prison officer through all those hoops to help them with their mental health and they are unfit to come back to work, they should be discharged on medical grounds not inefficiency grounds. I cannot fathom that.”