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 6 of 30.
“We have sales periods from 15 October to 10 November and 12 December to 31 December, and for various cultural events, such as the Chinese New Year and Diwali. I think that sales begin two days before the start of each of those events and go on until just afterwards. However, there remains concern about year-round online sales that can circumvent those time periods.”
“Indeed, as I have mentioned, many online sales go unchallenged. <BR /> <BR />The legislation also talks about a curfew on the use of fireworks, which is between 11.00 pm and 7.00 am, as it is for most things. That is pretty normal. However, some fireworks are sold as having added noise. That is how they are sold: with added noise. That is not like the continuous humming of machinery; it is loud bangs — added noise — of up to 120 decibels. That is well beyond what is acceptable at 11.00 pm for many people. The World Health Organization, for example, says that 85 decibels risks hearing damage, yet we have 120-decibel fireworks. I will touch on that in a minute. The Minister is right to say that we do not have a say in that, because it is not a devolved matter.”
“You are absolutely right, Minister, but here is part of the problem: those fireworks are not coming from within the United Kingdom or these islands; a lot of them are coming from international suppliers and shippers. We have a problem there. <BR /> <BR />Fireworks licensing — both year-round licensing and temporary licensing — is done by the Department of Justice. I think that there are around 500 permanent licences out there, give or take 50 or so, and I am not sure how many temporary licences are out there — I could not get a hold of those figures — yet the smuggling of fireworks across the border has increased, as have online sales. Fireworks are now far more available than they were 20 years ago. That is just a simple fact. Given that fact alone, the legislation should be reviewed.”
“Just let me get through my remarks a bit. In fact, go ahead.”
“The Minister summed it up really well: a lot of what we are talking about is illegal use of fireworks, which is a criminal justice issue. However, there are loopholes in there that we have to try to close. The age for purchase of fireworks is 18, but we all know that companies out there will sell fireworks to people who are under 18. They will not ask for proof of age or whether somebody has a licence. About an hour before the debate started, I checked that myself.”
“The motion is clear and simple: it is about future-proofing our legislation on the use of fireworks; nothing more. The argument that we have the most robust legislation on these islands, which is what it says in the amendment, is subjective, because Ireland has a near total ban on fireworks. The legislation covers well fireworks that are used correctly, including at organised events. The problem is the proliferation of fireworks and the misuse and illegal use of them, which is having a major impact. Things have changed in the past 20 years. That is just fact. <BR /> <BR />I will reflect on areas of the current legislation and examine the effectiveness that we talk about. The first thing that I have to be clear on is that we want everybody to adhere to the law on fireworks.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will reflect on those indoor fireworks. I thought that they were absolutely fantastic, and they are still out there. You can still buy them, so, if any Members want a bit of nostalgia, they should get online and buy themselves a set of indoor fireworks. I remember speaking to some of my friends in England and telling them about that. They thought that I was joking when I told them that there were indoor fireworks. They could not believe it.”
“Our party is clear on two things for now. First, we will argue that the term "victim" refers only to those who were killed or injured through no fault of their own. We will also make sure that sexual crimes are added to the list of serious harm, because rape was used as a weapon of war during our Troubles. <BR /> <BR />Paris is healing and, in some cases, has healed, because it confronted the truth. The French did not hide away from direct language; they used direct language. Terrorists are terrorists: they terrorise. Victims are the innocent people who were made victims by terrorists. Let us get back to clear speaking, and maybe we will sort this mess out.”
“Nobody would do anything other than refer to those who were killed and injured as "victims". The perpetrators were not victims. Why on earth do we, in this place and throughout Northern Ireland, bend ourselves out of shape so as not to point the finger at the people who perpetrated atrocities and say, "You are the terrorist, and you terrorised", and point at the victims and say, "You are the victims. We will make sure that we look after you and refer to you as 'victims'. We will not group you with the very people who made you victims"? <BR /> <BR />The Ulster Unionist Party is a party of the rule of law. It does not matter who you are — soldier, policeman, civilian or politician — if you break the law, you should face the law. We will stand up for that. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference will meet on legacy very shortly.”
“Ten years ago, we were coming to terms with the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks. Those attacks, on 13 November 2015, left 130 people dead and nearly 400 injured. France was left in a state of emergency for nearly two years such were the attacks. Who can forget the scenes of the aftermath of the Bataclan massacre? Ninety people were killed in that venue alone. It was truly devastating. The attacks started with a series of suicide bombs. As somebody who has been directly involved in three suicide bomb attacks, I know just how devastating suicide bombings are and the injuries that they cause. Paris has come through a lot, because that particularly fateful day cost Paris a lot. <BR /> <BR />Absolutely nobody in this Chamber would refer to those ISIS perpetrators as "combatants".”
“The Departments have to work together, but we cannot allow those people to illegally do as they wish and take no action. We are direct, and I make no apologies for being direct about the issue. <BR /> <BR />I hope that the House does not divide. It is a good motion, and the DUP amendment is good. We will certainly not push for a Division.”
“<BR /> <BR />I say that the FICT commission did not come up with recommendations: it did come up with them, but they were not agreed by any of the political parties or anyone on the commission. Again, that does not matter: we can make that decision. I am clear, as is the Ulster Unionist Party, that, if something is illegal, the criminal justice system has to act. If something has been built on private land that does not have planning permission and contravenes our laws, we have to act. If that has to be through the criminal justice system, it is through the criminal justice system; if it has to be through the Department for Infrastructure, it is through the Department for Infrastructure; if it has to be through the Department for Communities, that is where it is through.”
“That does not matter, because that was the FICT report. We can make an agreement. We can decide which way to go forward. We can go forward with the motion and the amendment. Our amendment is a little stronger, but I will not divide on it. We need to go forward, and we need to change. We simply cannot have a situation where we walk down the street and see memorials to terrorists popping up all over the place and victims having to walk past them every day. We spend a lot of time talking about flags, and I understand the private Member's Bill about flags, but flags can be taken down. Some of the hard memorials are seriously large structures that cannot be taken down, and the victims are traumatised by them every day.”
“There are things that we can do. <BR /> <BR />Is there an opportunity for a single memorial for all victims? Not just yet. We can look at that and strive for it in the future, but we are not there yet, and that is a reality. I spent three years on FICT, and I know what it did and talked about. I know where the conflict was in FICT: memorialisation was a huge conflict, and nothing was agreed. The FICT report clearly states:”
“That is positive, and the community was involved in that, which is the point that the Member makes and makes well. <BR /> <BR />In many ways, the military and the police have led on it. Some of you will know that the military took the vast majority of its memorials, including those to the construction workers who were murdered because they worked in military bases during the Troubles, and centralised them in Palace Barracks. If you go to Palace Barracks, you will see a memorial garden with memorials from across Northern Ireland. The garden is private, and people can go there to have a look at the memorials. The police did the same. Controversially, the police removed memorials from the public view, but they are still there for the police to see. Of course, there is the RUC memorial garden, which you can visit, but it is not in your face.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. If she had listened to my words, she would have heard that I did not put it all on to Justice; quite the opposite. I literally just mentioned Infrastructure, TEO and Communities. It needs a multi-agency, multifaceted approach, and criminal justice is part of that. We cannot ignore what is illegal. Glorifying terrorism is illegal, and I am saying, "Let us stop the illegality". We are not far apart, but that is where I am. <BR /> <BR />Have we seen change previously? Yes, we have: many murals have been re-imaged. There was a mural depicting Billy Wright, not far from where I live in Portadown, and it was just outside a school. It was re-imaged into George Best, and now it has been re-imaged into Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.”
“— very close to what is in the motion. The Executive Office should give support in coordinating those efforts and conducting an audit of said memorials in line with the original motion. <BR /> <BR />This can be fixed if we take direct action against those who are unwilling to make the change that is needed to end the glorification of violence. A criminal justice and police intervention; a Communities and Housing Executive intervention; an Infrastructure and planning enforcement intervention —.”
“To that end, our amendment asks the Justice Minister to ensure that the criminal justice system is configured to take affirmative action, as laid out in the Terrorism Act 2006, against those who directly and indirectly glorify terrorism. We also propose that other Ministers work in collaboration. This cannot be one Minister alone. The Infrastructure Minister should take direct action to remove illegal memorials that contravene planning permission. The Minister for Communities should lead a programme to support the re-imaging of memorials:”
“Every year, there is a parade to remember one of the murderers: Wesley Somerville. That has a direct and negative effect on those who survived that atrocity and on their families. It glorifies terrorism, and it is illegal. Brian Robinson murdered an innocent Catholic and was then shot by undercover soldiers. Again, a memorial and a parade that celebrates his action is allowed to take place each year. Imagine what it is like to be the family of the man who was murdered when they see the man who murdered their loved one being venerated in that manner. I am conscious that they had families and that those families still grieve their loss — we must always be mindful of that — but, for me, it is the victims whom we should focus our attention on.”
“What we see continually is terrorism and terrorists being glorified daily, while the innocent victims find themselves forgotten, marginalised and isolated. <BR /> <BR />Thomas McElwee was a terrorist. He burned a young mother to death in Ballymena. Her name was Yvonne Dunlop. Every year, the glorifying of McElwee in words, deeds and memorials brings renewed grief to her family — every year. Thomas Begley was a mass murderer, yet he has a memorial that celebrates his active service in murdering 10 people, including children. Why, as a society, do we think that that is right? Why do we think that remembering your dead cannot be done without climbing all over the victims? <BR /> <BR />The murder of the members of the Miami Showband was an appalling atrocity, and it was perpetrated by those who showed no regard for life.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />We have no issue with the motion or with the DUP amendment, and we will not force a Division on either. However, if I may, I will be a bit more direct with regard to memorialisation. Here is a simple truth about Northern Ireland: there are more memorials in Northern Ireland to the perpetrators than to the victims. It is a sad indictment of our society that that is the case. Everyone has a right to remember their dead — it is easily said; we say it all the time, and I am saying it now — but that cannot be at the expense of the victims. Let us be honest: victims are impacted when they see perpetrators being venerated online, at memorials, in murals, in stone monuments or in words.”
“Was that ignored? If it was, it is damning that it was ignored and that McEntee was let out and sometimes let out while he was on his own. <BR /> <BR />It is also worth nothing that the Minister said that McEntee's tariff had expired. That was not the case; his tariff was not due to expire until June 2027. So, the Minister, possibly inadvertently, misled the House. I know that she clarified that very point today. However, she did say that his tariff was close to expiring, but that is not true either, because he still had 30 months to go on his tariff. <BR /> <BR />There were some serious structural failings in the pre-release testing that allowed McEntee to be out on day release after murdering Marjorie and Michael Cawdery. The family, rightly, want answers; the family, rightly, deserve answers; and the Minister needs to give answers.”
“Yet, at the sentencing of McEntee, Dr Kennedy and Justice Colton, who were looking after the case, agreed:”
“They were concerned, because the Minister said that the Prison Service notified the Victims' Commissioner and the Parole Commissioners, but the family are absolutely adamant that it was they who notified the commissioner and that it was they who requested that the Prison Service contact the Parole Commissioners, not the Prison Service. It is a real concern and a failing that a family had to do that. <BR /> <BR />The other issue that the family raised was in challenging the Minister when she said:”
“Last week, my fellow Upper Bann MLA Jonathan Buckley raised a question for urgent oral answer with the Justice Minister about the murder of Marjorie and Michael Cawdery by Thomas McEntee while he was on day release. Many who know case will know that the family, in particular Charles Little, worked extremely hard to help inform how the health trusts and the PSNI deal with individuals who have mental health issues, as McEntee did. <BR /> <BR />After the question for urgent oral answer, the family contacted me about some of the answers that the Justice Minister gave.”
“Restorative justice is one of those areas that I am really glad that we are talking about. It is incredibly important. Will the Minister look at adult restorative justice forming part of the sentencing framework in the new sentencing Bill?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned Operation Banner, and that is a fair and historic point. However, he does know, of course, that Operation Banner ended, and Operation Helvetic started, and it runs today. The very same soldiers whom we are talking about are the very same soldiers who go out to your community to defuse bombs, even today.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask that the Minister review one of her answers, which took us down a bit of a rabbit hole. She said that the restrictions on McEntee were that he was not allowed in the Portadown area. The murders took place in Craigavon and not within the Portadown boundary. I think that that was a simple mistake, but it would be worthwhile for the Minister to clarify what the restrictions were and give a more detailed answer when she gets the opportunity to do so.”
“Will the Minister think about including that in the sentencing Bill that is due soon?”
“The Minister knows that I have raised the issue of keeping victims informed on multiple occasions, particularly with regard to the family of Jim McFadden, who was murdered by James Meehan. Therefore, I have raised the issue of pre-release testing and the failures, as I believe, of the Probation Board's victim unit. Even last week, Meehan was up in court, and the family was not even informed of the outcome of that. Meehan has now been at large for a year. <BR /> <BR />We see with the Cawdery family that the prisoner release victim information scheme seems to have had a catastrophic failure as well. The Minister has been very clear that a review is ongoing, but does she not now feel that it is time that we had an opt-out system of joining the prisoner release victim information scheme, instead of an opt-in system?”
“Thank you, Minister. Hopefully, you can come back to me with that answer. You may have to come back to me on this question as well. Is the Northern Ireland Civil Service inclusive language guide, which recommends using the title "Mx" instead of "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss" or "Ms", a mandatory policy for all departmental staff? What funding has been set aside for training on that?”
“Thank you, Minister. Do any of the strategic, targeted reforms include a review of revenue raising?”
“Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I will be honest and say that, if I were to send you an email about every road or footpath issue that I have, I would be spamming you for days on end. The problem is that the overgrown vegetation on private and public land sometimes causes a risk to people. I know that your Department puts out enforcement action, but people do not take it and the Department does not follow it up. Can you do anything to start following up on the enforcement action that the Department puts out?”
“<BR /> <BR />I started by saying that our thoughts should be with those who were killed, those who were injured and their families, but, in truth, they have had more than anybody else in Northern Ireland has had regarding investigations, inquiries and bringing somebody to trial. There are so many more people out there who have not had that. We need to reflect and remember compassion and empathy.”
“I am not complaining about that — it is a lot of money, but I am certainly not complaining about it, and I am not complaining about the £4·3 million that was spent defending Soldier F — but look at the Birmingham bombings. Twenty-one people were murdered and over 200 were injured, but victims and families have been told that they are not getting an inquiry. In many ways, we have to reflect on the issue in the round. I am happy enough to say that Bloody Sunday was wrong and that what happened on that day was poor — I am more than happy to say that: it was certainly nothing to be proud of — but carrying on down the road that we are going down now, and trying to tell families that they are going to get something that, clearly, they are not going to get, does not help anybody.”
“Those who tried to extrapolate the trial of Soldier F to cover all those are the people who created the feeling of a show trial, but that is not what happened. It was a trial against a lance corporal — a single lance corporal who was in charge of four soldiers out of thousands who were deployed on that day. He was found not guilty. Regardless of whether we like it — I know the families do not like it, but it is the reality of where we are — the individual was found not guilty. The families can now do as they wish to bring further charges of perjury — it is their absolute right to do so — but I am concerned that we are leading them down another road where we will raise their hopes and then dash them. <BR /> <BR />We had the Saville inquiry and spent £200 million.”
“When we stand to talk about such things, I am always mindful of the fact that we should do so with compassion and empathy. I am a military veteran of 44 years. Today, as I stand here, my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones or who were injured. It is important to acknowledge that. <BR /> <BR />One of the worst things about all this is that we always knew what the outcome of the trial was going to be, because there was not the evidence that was needed to secure a conviction. At times, the families were let down when people made them feel as though there would be enough to get a conviction. Clearly, there was not, and everybody knew that. It was not the army that was on trial, nor was it the Parachute Regiment.”
“The data breach was an unforeseen mistake, and I cannot understand why the Treasury cannot see it as an exceptional circumstance. We are all talking about the money for compensation. Have you had any discussions with the Justice Minister to find out the cost of welfare for those officers, their staff and families, including children who may have had to move school, who have been affected by the data breach? What is the cost of all that?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. GenderGP, which is based in Singapore, is promoting alternatives to puberty blockers online that may well be harmful to very vulnerable individuals without a GP's prescription. Is there anything that the Department of Health can do in collaboration with others in order to address that?”
“First, I welcome the fact that the Minister and his Department have accepted the 21 recommendations in full. Does the Minister have further information on potentially offering families access to approaches that are less invasive than a post-mortem?”
“Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Legahory in Craigavon has footpaths, street lighting, sewerage, entrance and exit roads but not a single house. Will the Minister encourage the Housing Executive to give that land to developers so that they can develop housing on it?”
“I raise this again: the historic environment division and Knock Iveagh. Are you looking at that, or is it dead in the water? The council needs to move on it.”
“That rolled off your tongue wonderfully, Minister; it did not sound as though you prepared it at all.”
“I am sorry, but I have only five seconds left. I support the motion. Not every word in it is perfect, but I still think that it is clear.”
“I am further concerned, because, when I asked the First Minister just yesterday whether she could guarantee that the process will be victim-centred, it became clear to me that nobody has even engaged with our Executive Office, which is responsible for the victims and survivors strategy, so it cannot even say that it will be victim-centred.”
“In my last conversation with the Irish Government, they were quite clear that the directorate of military intelligence, which was formerly known as G2, will be able to redact information before investigation, and an Garda Síochána will also redact information before investigation. There is no oversight body.”
“Negotiations are negotiations, but you cannot be a negotiator if you are the ones who are literally denying justice at the same time. You cannot turn round and say, "We are going to negotiate with you and we are going to make sure that you have an oversight body, but, do you know what, we are not going to do anything". That is a genuine concern. Whether you see it or do not see it, that is a genuine concern. <BR /> <BR />The Irish Government have now said that they will have a gardaí legacy unit. That is a move in the right direction. Who will be the oversight body for that legacy unit? How will we ensure that they do not redact information?”
“That is the core of what we are talking about here. The Irish have not done enough, if anything whatsoever. I remind people that the Omagh bomb was constructed in Ireland, the explosives were sourced in Ireland, the timer power unit was built in Ireland, the car was stolen in Ireland, the murderous operation was planned and mounted from Ireland, and the murderers — the perpetrators — returned to Ireland, yet the Irish Government think that it is nothing to do with them. It is utterly scandalous. We should all be up in arms about that. That is the heart of the DUP motion: to say to the Irish, "You have not done enough. Do more". How you cannot support that is absolutely beyond me.”
“We are not going to do it any more". They did so having been lobbied by Sinn Féin for amnesties. The Irish Government stand with their hands in their pockets complaining about the UK Government's legacy legislation while they do absolutely nothing. Their refusal to investigate Troubles-related crimes has delayed and denied justice, and that will be exploited by the perpetrators in the same way that the OTR letters were exploited by Downey. The chief suspect in the murder of Gareth O'Connor in 2003 was handed an OTR letter by a senior member of Sinn Féin — again, denying and delaying justice. <BR /> <BR />We have already debated this issue. We have already talked about what happened in regard to Omagh, and we supported the families' call for the Irish Government to open an independent inquiry into the Omagh bombing.”
“Corporal Heather Kerrigan and Private Norman McKinley were murdered by the PIRA during a cross-border operation — their killers were quite happy to slip back into Ireland, which they saw as a safe haven. The fact is that Ireland was used as a safe haven for terrorists, who were comfortable attacking civilians in Northern Ireland safe in the knowledge that they could go back to the Irish Republic and be safe. <BR /> <BR />Do I have confidence in the Irish Government and their legacy dealings on the Troubles? Not one bit, and here is why: because the former Irish Justice Minister made it clear in 2021 that the Government had decided that it was no longer in the state's interest to investigate and prosecute Troubles-related crimes. In 1998, the Irish Government literally said, "That is it. We have drawn a line in the sand.”