Steven Agnew
North Down · Green Party · Northern Ireland
“We need an independent, open and transparent process for investigating Ministers. I have always failed to understand the opposition to that from some in the House. Given recent events, if the Assembly was to oppose it again today, there would be public anger.”
“This process would involve one commissioner and one independent investigation, rather than a political investigation that, I have no doubt, some at the time called a witch-hunt, as is often said when people are defending their Minister.”
“I am delighted to make a winding-up speech on this debate, which has been the first-ever sole Green Party private Member's motion. Thanks to the election of my colleague, Clare Bailey, we have two Green MLAs, which has increased our ability to use the Assembly privileges to put such suggestions forward.”
“I absolutely agree, Mr Beggs. <BR /> <BR />Another point I will make is about the idea of the distinction between the Minister and the Department. When I was drafting my private Member's Bill, I asked, "Should that say 'Minister' or 'Department'?". The legal advice that I was given was that they are one and the same.”
“If an MLA is alleged to have breached the code, a member of the public can write to the standards commissioner and have their complaint investigated in an independent manner. The result of any investigation is published and can, if required, lead to a debate in the Assembly so that all the issues can be aired.”
“I would argue that it serves neither the Minister nor the public well that we do not have such a process. An individual who seeks to complain will be left frustrated if they feel that their concerns are ignored by those in office, who are supposed to act on their behalf.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,353 lines we hold for Steven Agnew, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 28.
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I always articulate my view of how far we have come in Northern Ireland as being proud of how far we have come since 1998 and frustrated that we have not gone further faster. It is important to remember both aspects, but it is the frustration that drives me towards seeking change and improvement. <BR /> <BR />It is concerning that we may simply dismiss the Bill out of hand. It is important. It is a complex piece of work, and credit to Mr McCallister for tabling it. It is important that we have amendments and that, from people's different perspectives, serious attempts have been made to improve on it. To simply dismiss the Bill altogether and oppose all its clauses would be an opportunity wasted to really show that, collectively, we are working together to improve these institutions.”
“Coming down the line, we will have a reduction in the number of MLAs. Collectively, those send out a message that we are looking to improve governance in Northern Ireland.”
“Our priority should be good governance. That is certainly what the electorate want. There has been debate in the Chamber today about the balance of power within the House and within our systems of government. We have done a lot of work collectively to improve delivery from the Assembly. I welcome the Departments Bill, which will reform the number of Departments, hopefully to make a more efficient system and get better joined working between Departments. The Children's Services Co-operation Bill, which was the result of my private Member's Bill, was very much about getting that joined-up working. The transition in the number of Departments, and that Bill, which will require Departments to work together for children, can help us change the culture of governance in Northern Ireland.”
“That is great, but it is all about resources. As I say, it has to be about shared experiences; otherwise we will not have moved things forward with this legislation. <BR /> <BR />I have made my main points. I am conscious that I do not want to run past 1.00 pm. There is an opportunity in the Bill. As I say, it is not the direction of travel that I would have chosen, but there are amendments here that can ensure that the opportunity to get the best of shared education can be taken. If we do not amend the Bill significantly before Final Stage, that opportunity will have been wasted.”
“The Bill must be read alongside the shared education policy, which describes types of sharing. It includes:”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Absolutely, but the point of my story is that I do not want people to get funding for simply going to another school once a year to give blood; I want children to be educated together. I want them to share experiences not buildings. I do not want them to point at each other and say, "They are different from us". I want them to meet each other and say, "They are the same as us". If shared education is to have value beyond economics, resources and finances, that is what it has to be about. There is a suggestion that amendment No 10 will not be moved and a different wording can be realised. I hope that that happens, because that speaks to a major flaw in the Bill: the lack of a requirement for quality and quantity sharing.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. It is comical, but comedy and tragedy are two sides of the same coin. My worry is that, 20 years on, we are no further on. That is tragic. If the Bill does not address that, we really will have wasted an opportunity.”
“The example was given of sharing a couple of sports games a year: is that sharing? I always think of an example from when I was at school. Every six months, we had the opportunity to give blood. The schools would alternate. I went to what was, to all intents and purposes, a Protestant school. On one occasion, we would have the opportunity to give blood in the nearest Catholic school; then, in six months' time, they would come to our school. I remember walking through that school, and I go back to the point about having different uniforms because it is important: immediately, we walked through a row of people who, effectively, pointed at us and said, "There are the Protestants". When they came to our school, we did the same thing and said, "There are the Catholics".”
“Again, it creates a duty to consider shared education. I have no problem in that regard: consideration should be given. I take Mr Lunn's point that it should be to consider shared or integrated education. I think that he or I, the pair of us or the Committee, if it is minded, could table an amendment to that effect at Further Consideration Stage, should amendment No 15 be made. As I say, my preference is for amendment No 15 over amendment No 9, which ties itself to amendment No 8. They seek to do similar things. That outcome can be achieved through amendment No 15. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 10 is key. It is something that I raised at Second Stage. What does sharing look like? What is the quality and indeed quantity of sharing that we require before we have this funding?”
“As I have said, where there is an opportunity for integrated education, it should be preferred over sharing. Children should wear the same uniform regardless of their religious background. They should share the same classroom. They should be taught the same classes. As in the example used before, geography is the same geography whether you are Protestant or Catholic. Although, in this part of the world, you might call it Derry or Londonderry, it is still the same place effectively. I am opposed to amendment No 8. I think that there is a risk, and I prefer the power to promote, encourage and facilitate shared education rather than the duty. I will oppose amendment No 8 on that basis. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 9 and 15 seek to do similar things. As I will oppose amendment No 8, my preference is for amendment No 15, which stands alone.”
“I think that the Member will well know that being inclusive of all communities is where I come from; I just think, again, that this might have an unintended consequence. Maybe it comes further down my preference list. I certainly commend the intention of inclusivity, but, as I say, it might have an undesired effect in legislation. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 8 comes back to what I said at the start about whether there was tension between "shared" and "integrated". Certainly, when I expressed my scepticism about the agenda behind shared education, people tried to convince me. They said that it was really just a stepping stone towards integration, whether by name or just by effect. This is us getting towards educating children together.”
“Amendment No 3 is my preference, but I do not think that it would be disastrous if amendment No 6 were made. I respect the fact that the Committee and the Department are attempting to address the same issue. <BR /> <BR />With regard to amendment No 4 in the name of Trevor Lunn, this may be a bit of pedantry, but I studied logic, and, when you had "and" and "and", you had to have them all. That is so deeply ingrained. I cannot see that amendment and interpret it as "and other, where appropriate", I suppose. I cannot see any flexibility in it. In legal terms and certainly in logic terms, "and" has a very specific meaning that differs from "or", "may include" or any other wording.”
“<BR /> <BR />There has been an attempt to tackle the term "religious belief" and consider whether it includes those of no religion or no faith. I have looked at amendment No 3 and amendment No 6. They very much look to do the same thing. My preference is towards amendment No 3, because it makes it explicit that there are those of no religion. I think that that is right. In this job, sometimes I suppose you have to see things from other people's point of view without having necessarily canvassed opinion, but would people who consider themselves "atheist", "of no faith", "secular" or whatever term they might use like to be considered as part of "religious belief"? I suspect not. I suspect that "religious belief or none" is the correct wording to fully reflect citizens who do not subscribe to any religion.”
“<BR /> <BR />There has been talk about whether the drafting of the amendment is correct, but there is a greater point. Some people say, "This isn't the agenda of the Bill. It's not about the existing schools". We should recognise the schools that did not have to be incentivised in this way or nudged in this direction. There is value in including them and, where appropriate, ensuring that the supports that will be available to multiple schools that are sharing will be available to single schools that are already mixed or integrated. My preference is for amendment No 2, even if it needs to be redrafted at Further Consideration Stage. It prevents a perverse disincentive that the Bill could, otherwise, create to integrate or to have a single mixed school.”
“The definition and the legislation to date requires two schools to be involved. I can see why you would want to incentivise the schools that are not sharing, integrated or mixed to take that step, if that is what we are trying to do. At the same time, however, there is a perverse disincentive. If you get a really good example of sharing, where two schools work so well together that they think, "We could become one school" and that next step could be taken, they might say, "Hold on a minute. We're protected under legislation as 'shared schools'. There's funding that comes to us because we're shared schools. If we became a single integrated school or even a single shared school, we'd no longer have access to that support and funding".”
“We have a number of mutually exclusive amendments, which, I think, our voting system does not lend itself to. I have preferences. I do not think that it is as simple as there being one right amendment in respect of the definition and the rest being wrong. There is value to a number of the amendments. I will express my preference in that regard, although our voting system does not allow for preferential voting. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2, from Mr McCallister, addresses a potential and, I hope, unintended consequence of the Bill. We have, as has been pointed out, integrated schools, and we have "super-mixed" schools, as the Chair of the Committee described them. My understanding, prior to the legislation being produced, was that they would be included and that the term "shared" would include schools that are mixed or integrated.”
“To be fair, I think the legislation makes it clear that it cannot be that, but it still needs amendments to make sure that it is the best-case scenario of sharing. Where children are educated together, as I have said in the past, they share experiences, not just buildings.”
“We talk about designation in the House and whether we should move away from designating as "unionist" or "nationalist", but I would like to see us moving away from designating our children at age four and separating them into different schools due to their parents' religion or "community background", which is a term that we use in this part of the world. <BR /> <BR />If we accept that sharing is the way forward, the definition of "sharing" will be important in determining whether we get my worst-case scenario, which I have articulated before, where two sets of pupils go in separate doors of the same building and never the twain shall meet.”
“<BR /> <BR />I accept that, in the Programme for Government and the legislation before us, that is the direction of travel that has been chosen. It is the wrong choice — I have been clear about that in the past — but that is the context in which I will speak to the amendments to see how we can make the best of sharing. As I said, an opportunity was wasted to go beyond simply sharing resources, which is what happens in some cases, and move towards educating children together and away from designating our children.”
“We have the opportunity to say, "Let's have one school. Let's educate these children together. Let's not divide them on the basis of their parents' religious belief.". When we talk about primary schools, it is almost ridiculous to talk about a child's religious belief; it is really about the parents. We had that opportunity, and we wasted it. For me, shared education is about taking the same situation and saying, "No. Let's keep two schools, two principals and two sets of teachers, but maybe we can share a building so that we can save some money, or maybe we can share the two buildings". Whilst that may be better than where we were, it is not as good as where we could have been. That is where shared and integrated were competing choices.”
“I will start with a few general comments on the Bill and the amendments and then speak specifically to each of them. <BR /> <BR />I follow on from what was said by the previous Member and Mr Newton. It has been suggested that those who support integrated education should not fear shared education and that the two can coexist. I suppose that that is correct, but we make choices in politics about policy direction and where we direct resources. With falling classroom numbers and empty desks, there is an opportunity. There is an opportunity where we have a school that happens to be a Catholic school and a school that happens to be a majority Protestant school — I accept that state schools are not specifically designated as "Protestant" — in the same town, where both have empty desks and where we cannot afford to keep both of them open.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. We discussed the Final Stage of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill yesterday, and there was an example where the Committee brought forward an amendment on cooperation, which the Department effectively rewrote at Further Consideration Stage, and, by voting it through, the Assembly showed its intent. Does the Member not agree that that is an approach that we could take with this amendment? We could show the intent that we want to quantify sharing and let the Department's legal team look at a reformed wording.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Is there a risk, though, if a single school is not allowed to qualify, of a perverse disincentive to two schools merging to become one shared or integrated school because they would lose the opportunity of accessing that funding?”
“We cannot solve those by legislation, but, in combination with putting the required resources in, getting the processes right will ensure that children with special educational needs are properly catered for. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the Bill as a positive piece of the equation. The test will be improvements for families and when we hear of positive experiences rather than the problems that our constituents come through the doors to tell us about. I look forward to that.”
“I think that a measure of the success of this Bill would be if we can address that and ensure, through early intervention and support, that we keep our children in mainstream education and help them to thrive in that setting. The frustrations and challenges of some of the conditions covered by the term "special educational needs" should not lead a child to being diverted from achieving their full potential. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the Bill. Throughout the discussions, Members referred to many constituency issues. I suspect that the Bill alone will not solve all of them, but I certainly see it as a positive step forward and a help. Resources are necessary to solve some of the problems in special educational needs provision.”
“That was the issue of transition to adult services: the need for a parallel approach by the Department of Health and that of Education and the extra anxiety that could be added to a child and family. I welcome that amendment, and I think that when the issue of special educational needs moves outside the Department of Education, whether it be to further or higher education or outside the mainstream education settings, for example, in criminal justice, we should not lose sight of the needs of children or young adults with special educational needs. <BR /> <BR />I think that there may probably be an over-representation in the criminal justice system of people with special educational needs.”
“<BR /> <BR />I welcome that, through the Committee Stage, the cooperation amendments have been brought forward and, in particular, that the requirements to cooperate between the Department of Health and that of Education are in place. At Further Consideration Stage, the Minister referred to correspondence between himself and the Health Minister. I am sure that it was not the first time that that had taken place on this issue. It is necessary that, at ministerial level, and also culturally between the two Departments, we have joined-up working, communication and, indeed, shared purpose. <BR /> <BR />I thank the House and the Minister for supporting the amendment that I made in relation to cooperation for transitions. It is an issue that has come up; it certainly came up when my Bill was going through the House.”
“There are two aspects to that. There is the statementing process itself; we hope that, as a result of the Bill, it will become more efficient and simpler. However, as Mr Rogers said, there is also support needed for those who may never require a statement but are identified by their teachers, family, health worker, or whoever it might be, as having special educational needs. We must ensure that support is still provided, even in the absence of a statement. Certainly, from speaking to teachers and principals, I think that that is where the challenge comes for them: being able to provide the extra resources that become available without a statement being in place. Perhaps the personal learning plan can be part of that solution. Inevitably, we will always seek additional resources, and it is not one or the other; it must be both.”
“It is right to say that we have made great strides in the identification of special educational needs. Particular credit has to go to our teachers, both in primary and nursery schools. The problem with that is, of course, that it puts extra pressure on services. The test of the Bill will be whether the follow-up services happen more quickly and are improved once identification has been made. We talk a lot about early identification, but if the identification is early and the support is slow there will inevitably be frustration for the families involved.”
“— the potential of devolution. We need to be a mature, responsible Government and look at ways that we can raise income so that we can invest in this society instead of wasting the potential of devolution.”
“Effectively, Northern Ireland is like a child being given an allowance. We are half a Government. Government is about tax and spend, but we just spend for fear of being unpopular, the irony being that I do not think that this Assembly and Executive have ever been more unpopular. So, in our attempts to please everybody, we are pleasing nobody. <BR /> <BR />It is time that we step up and mature. Reference was made to Scotland, where we can see —”
“That is unfair and unjust, and it is a disgrace that, at a time when we have limited public funds, we do not lift the cap on rates and use the one real lever that we have to raise revenue, make it progressive and make sure that those who can afford to pay more when times are difficult actually pay more. The rates have effectively been frozen, and it would be irresponsible to put them up while we maintain a system whereby those in smaller homes subsidise those in larger properties. It is a waste of our devolution, a waste of the limited powers that we have and a waste of the goodwill that we built up in 1998, which has been gradually dissipating as people become disillusioned with some of the decisions being made by the Executive.”
“Does that mean that the Evason proposals are unaffordable? By my calculations, that seems to be the case. <BR /> <BR />At the same time as we are raiding welfare and even in the straitened financial times when we hear about the difficulties in the health service and everything else, we maintain the cap on rates, meaning that those in modest houses continue to subsidise those in million-pound mansions. In my constituency, that means that those in Kilcooley estate subsidise the rates of those who own an estate in Cultra. You could make that argument about any part of my constituency.”
“Much has been said about the Minister not forgetting where he came from, and he will know my views on welfare well. We had a £585 million fund agreed as part of — I always forget the name — the Fresh Start Agreement, and we are raiding £30 million from it. We are raiding £30 million from the fund that we set up to protect the most vulnerable in our society — those on the lowest incomes. Today, we hear reports on the Evason proposals, and I have yet to see the detail of that. It has been reported, incorrectly in my view, that she has underspent, but, if the proposal is, as it appears to be, to raid £30 million per year from the mitigation fund, Evason's proposals will be unaffordable. We will be £40 million short. I will be interested to hear from the Minister what that will look like.”
“For all the talk of not implementing Tory cuts, this is the implementation of DUP/Sinn Féin cuts. These are cuts made in Northern Ireland. It is a 100%-cuts Budget. I criticise the Tories as much as anyone and look forward to the day when they are out of government, but even they recognise that you have to raise revenue in places. They do not go as far as I would like, but they recognise that revenue raising is half of the equation of balancing the books. There is no mention or consideration of revenue raising in this Budget. Groups as diverse as the CBI and NICVA have lobbied for the Government to consider revenue-raising measures, yet, again, the opportunity to do that has been wasted. <BR /> <BR />Take a look at something like welfare mitigation.”
“I cannot speak for all the other young people who were there that day, but I can speak for myself. There were two hopes. There was the hope of peace. We have a relatively strong peace. It is not perfect — we still have paramilitaries attacking people, including in my community — but it is relatively strong. The other hope was for good governance and that we could have something better for Northern Ireland and would not have Ministers flying back and forth from England who knew little about the place. I remember one being made Minister with responsibility for young people in Northern Ireland, and he said, "I am an old man, so I am not young, and this is my first time in Northern Ireland". That just about summed up the old situation. That hope and that opportunity have been wasted, and that waste can be seen in this Budget.”
“When U2 played in Belfast recently, Radio Ulster replayed its documentary on the gig that U2 did with Ash in the run-up to the Good Friday Agreement. I was interviewed for that programme. It was before I was a politician, and I was one of the young people in the crowd, thanks, I have to say, to tickets I got courtesy of the SDLP — thank you very much for that, guys. I listened again to that interview, in which I talked of my excitement both at the gig and at the chance of a peace agreement for Northern Ireland. I look at where I am now and look back to that 18-year-old and wonder, "Well, what would he make of it?".”
“Does the Minister have any money for capital builds for shared and integrated education in this financial year as a result of the Fresh Start deal?”
“I am happy to support amendment No 2. It is technical, and it adds scrutiny powers to the Assembly. That is something that I am always willing to welcome. <BR /> <BR />I echo the comments of others in thanking the Committee staff, the Chair, departmental officials and the Minister for their work on the Bill. I also acknowledge the role of the Irish League of Credit Unions and the Ulster Federation of Credit Unions. We are passing good legislation, although, obviously, it has further stages to go. All credit to those who have been involved in getting it this far.”
“It is my understanding that credit unions in the Republic of Ireland are also able to do this. We listened to the concerns of the Department about the possible unintended consequences of legislating for an unincorporated body to be seen as an entity rather than there having to be a named person, as is proposed. We understand the concerns and the need to provide protection for the board and membership of unincorporated bodies. The compromise, I suppose, is amendment No 1, which was proposed by the Department and accepted by the Committee. The review after two years will allow time to look at alternatives. I hope that further progress has been made on that because, if there has been any frustration with the Bill, it has been with this element of it.”
“At the outset, I declare an interest as a member of Bangor Credit Union. Other Members talked about the importance of credit unions, and I have spoken about it in the Assembly, too, so I will not dwell on that, other than to say that they are a very valuable part of our community and perform a valuable role. As Mr Dunne pointed out, in many cases, that involves the hard work of volunteers, which is worth acknowledging here today. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the progress made on corporate membership. That is probably the nearest that we have had to a controversial aspect of the Bill. We are moving in the right direction. As mentioned, there is still work to be done on unincorporated bodies. As was pointed out, banks can treat an unincorporated body as a corporate member.”
“I support all three amendments, and I thank Members for their consideration of and support for my amendment. I welcome the progress that has been made with the Bill.”
“At the same time, I am glad that the Committee raised it, because the issue of pooling budgets is the key to unlocking some of the duplication or, indeed, some of the disagreement between Departments when it comes to funding services. I am glad that it has been raised, but I accept the assurances from the Minister that the Children's Services (Co-operation) Act adequately covers the pooling of budgets in relation to this Bill. <BR /> <BR />Overall, I am very supportive. There has been an advancement of the provisions of the Bill as it has gone through the Assembly, but I would like to pick up on one point and seek a bit more detail from the Minister. He mentioned that the legislation would be followed by training, so I would like him to give a bit more detail about who will receive the training and who will fund it. That would be helpful.”
“One of my big criticisms at Second Stage was about the seeming lack of correspondence between the Education Minister and the Health Minister on this Bill. The Minister has confirmed this evening that not only are they in conversation on the Bill but they have corresponded on my amendment, so progress has been made as the Bill has made its way through the House. I thank the Minister for his consideration of the amendment. While in legislative terms it is a small amendment, it can make a big difference to the lives of children with special educational needs. <BR /> <BR />I support the Minister's amendments and take on board what he has said about pooled budgets. That was contained in my private Member's Bill, and to introduce it again in this would be duplication.”
“Any life transition is difficult for any of us, but it is particularly so for those with special educational needs, especially autism. The fact that we had parallel planning was unacceptable. I welcome the Minister's comments this evening because I believe that I raised the issue at Second Stage. <BR /> <BR />I was, in part, critical of the Bill at Second Stage, and it is an example of where the Assembly and its processes work. The work of the Committee in proposing the amendment to require cooperation was welcome, building as it does on the work that I did with the Children's Services (Co-operation) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which, the Speaker informed the House today, has received Royal Assent. We are seeing real progress.”
“The parallel planning of transitions to adult services for children with learning disabilities was raised by the Children's Commissioner in the 2012 report that NICCY commissioned and that was produced by Queen's University. At that time, there appeared to be an issue whereby processes were increasing the number of transitions for children with learning disabilities, with health and education agencies sometimes setting different dates and timelines for transitions to adult services. I imagine that most of us in the Chamber who are aware of the issues involved with special educational needs — I think particularly of a condition such as autism — will be aware that transitions are incredibly difficult. They are difficult for all of us. Look at the top stressors: moving house, holidays, marriage and divorce.”
“I am very grateful to the Minister for her answer. She will be aware that there has been great concern in the community about access to the forest and its protection and, indeed, access to the site in general. What reassurance can she give to my constituents and beyond in relation to continuing public access and the protection and conservation of the site?”
“I believe that transparency in politics still has a long way to go. Despite the many achievements of Peter Robinson in his time, that is a legacy that remains. There is still suspicion and mistrust in politics because we do not have the levels of transparency that exist elsewhere on these islands. <BR /> <BR />On a personal level, I thank Mr Robinson. When I sought meetings with him, he obliged. I always appreciated that, knowing the many commitments that he had. Whatever his future holds after his time in the Assembly, I wish him good health and happiness.”
“I would like to add to the previous congratulations from many Members to Peter Robinson on what has been a long and distinguished career. As somebody who hopes that he is still at the beginning of his political career, I am not placed to judge the achievements of Peter Robinson. Others, maybe those who are longer in the tooth and more experienced, will do that. I am sure that there will be plenty written about his career, but, undoubtedly, it will be seen as having been successful. That said, as an elected Member, I have the right to disagree and to purport a very different political opinion. When Mr Robinson speaks of the pace of change, I always say that I am very proud of how far Northern Ireland has come, at the same time as being very frustrated that it has not moved further, faster.”
“If we are truly to put children at the centre of how we make decisions and how we plan these transitions, there needs to be cooperative working, and we should have one transition plan rather than two. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I welcome the amendments. Given the years that it has taken the Bill to get to this stage, I am disappointed that it does not do more. That said, I do not wish to be churlish. Much in the Bill is positive. I fully support a number of the amendments, particularly around cooperation, and I think that some progress is being made.”