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 15 of 28.
“<BR /> <BR />On amendment No 4, Alex Attwood described the pooling of resources as taking the Bill from one of process to one of product, and I liked that phrasing, because to me it is an essential part of the journey. The research that I did around this — and there was a great piece of guidance from the Department of Communities in the UK on the pooling of resources — showed that aligned budgets were what took place before the culture of true cooperation really happened. First, the Departments, agencies or whatever it might be would hold their own budgets but work together, but, in the natural course of trust and cooperation, pooled budgets would be the outcome and, indeed, the most effective measure.”
“Amendment No 2 being the latest draft or the latest iteration of that purpose, I absolutely think that it is essential that the Assembly supports that today in the Bill going forward. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 3, Megan Fearon highlighted the need, not just to consult with children, but to ensure that different socio-economic backgrounds were captured in any consultation. I think that is right. Whilst this is a Bill about children and, I suppose, about age, I think it is important that we do look at socio-economic background and that we do not just consult those who may seem easiest to reach or most able, but actually seek to engage those who might otherwise be seen as marginalised in society. I think that it was a point well made.”
“It absolutely underpins the purpose of the Bill; it is about cooperation, and that was the purpose of the Bill when I set out on this journey.”
“in relation to the statutory duty to cooperate. Again, that was a phrase that I interrogated. I think that I made reference in the opening remarks that it was Daniel Greenberg who described that as an "avoidance heffalump". <BR /> <BR />What it came down to when I interrogated this was different styles of drafting and different opinions. I sought a number of opinions, and it is not unusual language. I did not find examples where Departments had used this type of language to avoid their responsibilities. In the absence of evidence of harm from this sort of language, I am relaxed about its usage. I am content, in that regard, and I think that Mr Attwood was content when I intervened and explained my position. <BR /> <BR />Both Megan Fearon and Chris Lyttle highlighted that amendment No 2 is key to the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Similar to that point — indeed, I think that it was in reference to this point that Alex Attwood talked about the genuine spirit of the work of the Department — the question was asked about the phrase:”
“<BR /> <BR />One of the things that I have learnt through this process is that, sometimes, words that we use in everyday language that seem strong may not have much legal meaning. That is something that I will investigate, and, if necessary, I will bring an amendment if the advice is that that would indeed make the Bill stronger. That said, I am relaxed about the wording and echo the comments that Alex Attwood made. The constructive nature by which the Office of the First and deputy First Minister engaged with the Bill makes me think that the language that has come from the Department is there to assist rather than somehow to escape responsibility.”
“The Chair of the Committee, Mike Nesbitt, raised the issue as to whether the Executive requirement to "promote co-operation" was sufficient and whether the term "advance" would perhaps be stronger. I said in my opening comments that I was content with the language because it is an absolute requirement on children's authorities to cooperate: the word is "must". The promotion of cooperation by the Executive was additional to wording that was in the original draft of the Bill, so, in that regard, I support it because it went further than the original Bill. That said, however, now that the issue has been raised by stakeholders, I will seek advice on whether the term "advance" would further the aims of the Bill.”
“So the measurement, even in the research of a historical piece of legislation such as the 2004 Act is, to some extent inconclusive, although many indicators are used. However, the outcomes are those used in the 10-year strategy for children and young people. They are outcomes that Departments are used to assessing, and, in that regard, they do not deviate from work that is already being done in Departments. So, whilst I do not think that you can definitively answer questions about outcomes, you can measure indicators as to whether travel is in the right direction, and that is how I anticipate the reporting of those outcomes taking place. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 2.”
“That having been said, he welcomed the benefit that regard being had to the UNCRC could bring and said that, where we can look internationally for best practice, we should do that. <BR /> <BR />The only concern raised about amendment No 1 was how we measure the outcomes. That was raised by John McCallister, who made specific reference to measuring the economic and environmental well-being of children and whether they are positively contributing to society. <BR /> <BR />Throughout my research on the Bill on measuring outcomes, we looked a lot at the UK Children Act 2004, which had similar high-level outcomes enshrined in it. By their very nature, they are difficult outcomes to measure, particularly when you are looking at outcomes for children and generational outcomes and changes.”
“I thank all the Members who contributed to today's debate. I believe that the spirit of the debate so far has reflected the process involved in getting the Bill to this stage. It has been cooperative and constructive. I will speak to some of the comments made on each of the amendments and conclude by reflecting on some Members' contributions. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 1, there was a broad welcome for the inclusion of regard being paid to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in defining "well-being", particularly from Megan Fearon and Alex Attwood. Roy Beggs welcomed the language of "regard is to be had" and made the point that regard should be paid to the UNCRC rather than it be slavishly followed.”
“That is a phrase about which the Committee took its own legal advice or additional scrutiny from Daniel Greenberg. I also met him, and I think that he referred to it as — I am trying to remember his term, but I remember that the word "heffalump" was used. He said that it was an "avoidance heffalump", or something like that. I tried to seek other opinions and got reassurances from other legal opinions that that was normal practice in drafting and not simply a loophole through which a Department could escape. In that regard, I was content. I waited to see whether any other amendments came forward to seek that out. However, I am guessing that, whilst there are concerns about it, people are content that it is normal practice.”
“As with all the other aspects of the Bill, I hope that we can achieve a consensus on the way forward.”
“It has often been said that, if the first phase of the peace process was about getting stability, the second phase has to be about good governance. I believe that this Bill is part of that good governance. I believe that other Bills will come forward and take steps in that direction. What I want to see with this is the ending of the waste that arises from duplication, the ending of silo mentality, and the creation of the structures to work together for the best interests of children in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I ask Members to oppose clauses 1 to 5 as originally drafted and support the tabled amendments. I reiterate that I will not move amendment No 5 today in the hope of getting a draft that will receive favour from all sides of the House and from the Departments and the sector alike.”
“I hope that, should it receive the favour of the House, this Bill and the proposed amendments, along with Mr McCallister's opposition Bill and the proposed reduction in the number of Departments, can collectively improve governance in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I would like to thank the various stakeholders: OFMDFM, the OFMDFM Committee, the Bill Office, the children's sector and my own team, particularly Ross Brown, who has worked tirelessly on the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to make good practice common practice. It is to make cooperation in the planning, commissioning and delivery of children's services the norm. I hope that a change in culture can come out of that. We hear a lot about the failure of parties to work together, but those of us who work in this place know about the difficulties in Departments working together. We have to get this right for children.”
“From the beginning of this process, the work of the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership has been highlighted as good practice within government. I know that there has been further work to enshrine the good work of the CYPSP. What this amendment seeks to do is to put it on a statutory footing. There have been some areas of concern with that but, as I say, this does appear to be the direction of travel. It is something that the children's sector is calling for. It is something that there has certainly been a willingness in the Department of Health to take forward. We have a number of weeks to get that drafting right and, hopefully, bring forward a very good, if not perfect, amendment. As I say, the Bill must progress. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
“I have listened to the Department's concerns, and those are reflected in the Bill.”
“The current Children Order is about children in need, but I think that the research, the evidence and, indeed, the work of the Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership (CYPSP) has moved towards working for all children in order to capture those who are most in need, rather than seeking to identify those in need and often missing children who fall through the gaps. I think the catch-all approach is the right one. I think that it is the direction of travel, and I know that, in my discussions with the Department of Health, there is enthusiasm about enshrining that. I know that there were concerns about the original draft couching this within the Children Order. This current draft moves it out of the Children Order and simply repeals aspects of the order to avoid duplication.”
“I think that there is a window of weeks to get that amendment right, but there is the danger that we allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. I think that the amendment is a good one. <BR /> <BR />I will speak to the amendment's content. It is about updating the plan and bringing within the Bill the requirement that already exists in the Children Order to produce a plan for that commissioning and service delivery for children. It is to ensure that that includes all children, as the Bill does in every other aspect.”
“<BR /> <BR />In terms of additional time, I am willing to not move this amendment today in the hope of getting an agreed amendment for Further Consideration Stage, but that timeline is still tight. I am keen to see this Bill reach its Final Stage within the next number of weeks, but, as there is an opportunity to make further amendments to get this aspect of the Bill right, I am certainly willing to work with anyone who seeks to do that and give every opportunity for getting there. I do not think that the Bill can be delayed indefinitely. I certainly do not think that it can wait until such a time when we have Executive meetings again because I have no certainty or clarity as to when that might be.”
“I have worked with officials in OFMDFM with the sector, and I have engaged with the Department of Health, which I know has worked continuously with OFMDFM on getting this amendment right. I mentioned previously the desire to press on with this Bill, and I had been asked for more time to get this amendment right. As I said, at that time, the Assembly was hanging by a thread, and it is not out of the woods yet with political instability. My fear was that the whole Bill could fall. Amendment No 5 is an improvement on the original clause 4. It is that which was brought forward by officials and presented to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I think that it takes us in the right direction.”
“Whilst the current definition is not a catch-all, I think that it is a good, workable definition that mirrors other legislation. Should, through review of the Bill, that definition be required to be extended to other groups, I would be open to that. I think that, at this stage, this is a definition that has received a level of consensus and is workable in the context of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 9 is on the commencement, which would be immediate on Royal Assent. Amendment No 10 is on the Long Title, which has been revised to adequately reflect the new drafting of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I said that I would come back to amendment No 5 because, since I laid the Bill before the Assembly, clause 4 of the original draft was that which caused the most concern.”
“The definition contained in amendment No 8 mirrors that which is used in the legislation that established the Children's Commissioner. That was to ensure consistency and therefore includes vulnerable groups up to the age of 21. I know that, in some aspects of the work of Departments, some of those vulnerable groups will receive support until the age of 25, but this is about a working definition for the Bill and I do not want to produce something that may require significant resource when this is really about changing cooperation. For example, I do not believe for a second that those engaged in working with young people up to 25 will say, "We are not included by the Bill. We are not going to cooperate". The Bill is about enshrining cooperation as good practice and standard practice in Departments.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 8 is about interpretation and, as I mentioned previously, defines "children's authorities". This aspect of the Bill was always difficult in its original drafting. Again, I appreciate the Department's input into this. It brings in the Departments, the agencies of the Departments and the membership of the current Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership and includes them all under the catch-all term of "children's authorities". It tidies up the language and means that, at various stages of the Bill, one group can be referred to as "children's authorities". It adds definition and clarity to that aspect of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The term "young people" also needed to be defined. The definition of "children" in law is fairly straightforward, but "young people" must go beyond the age of 18.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is a degree of cynicism about reporting mechanisms at times but, for me, one of the key aspects of the reporting requirement is not just what you have done but what further opportunities you can identify for cooperation. That continual challenge to cooperate more and better is key and will mean that reporting cannot simply be a tick-box exercise but is a continual assessment and critique of the work of Departments and, indeed, children's authorities in terms of how cooperation is taking place and how delivery on the outcomes is being achieved. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 7 introduces another new clause, simply to give the Executive the power to issue guidance on the operation of the Bill. I think that it is a sensible amendment.”
“Again, that brings in more stakeholders and will improve the effectiveness of the Bill compared with the original draft. The new amendment also reflects the new language in these amendments. <BR /> <BR />I will skip amendment No 5 for now and come back to it because it is perhaps one of the most complex aspects of the Bill and one of the areas where it has been hardest to get the drafting right. Much work has gone into bringing it this far. As I say, I will return to it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 6 is on the reporting clause. It is key that we not only put the legislation in place but that we continually scrutinise its operation and review its effectiveness. The Executive would be required to report every three years and lay a report to the Assembly. That replaces the original reporting requirement in clause 2.”
“I hope and believe that should this Bill become law, the pooling of funds and resources will become a necessary outworking, because this is where a lot of the inefficiency arises. Take early intervention work. Five Departments are working to achieve the same objectives but with separate pools of resources and administrators. Pooling those resources will increase efficiency, improve delivery for children and underpin the joined-up working that the Bill seeks to achieve. <BR /> <BR />The changes to the original Bill that applied to only Departments now include all children's authorities.”
“It was the implementation rather than the strategy that was criticised. It is the application that this Bill seeks to address. <BR /> <BR />I welcome in this amendment the outcomes-based approach and enshrining in law that there must be an outcomes-based strategy, and included in the production of any such strategy is consultation with the sector, outside stakeholders and, importantly, children. That underpins article 12 of the UNCRC, which requires that children be included in decisions that affect their lives. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 would replace the original clause 3. This is around pooling funds and resources to achieve the objectives of the Bill. This is a key element of the Bill. I have done a lot of research into how pool funds work in other jurisdictions.”
“<BR /> <BR />The requirement of children's authorities to cooperate with one another and the Executive underpins the Bill and its purpose. There is an additional requirement for the Executive to promote cooperation. There are concerns around the word "promote". The duty on children's authorities is that they must cooperate. The word "promote" is very much about the Executive putting the structures in place to ensure that that cooperation happens. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 is a new aspect of the Bill. It very much came from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister but is an amendment that I wholeheartedly support. It would enshrine in law the production of the children and young people's strategy. Officials are working on an updated strategy. The last strategy had widespread support in its ambition and scope.”
“For that reason, any changes to those outcomes in the Bill would be subject to draft affirmative resolution, ensuring that consultation would have to take place on any changes. As was done with the children's strategy and the Bill to date, the sector and government would step forward together. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 enshrines the duty to cooperate. Where that has changed, the intention of the original Bill has remained. The original Bill separated the duty on Departments from the duty on other authorities and agencies that worked with children. Amendment No 2, with the definition at amendment No 8, allows the term "children's authorities" to capture Departments and agencies collectively. This improves the Bill whilst keeping the original intentions.”
“<BR /> <BR />One change made from the amendments shown to the Committee is that the six high-level outcomes have become seven. This is simply about giving greater definition to the outcomes; their original purpose remains the same. I will give Members some insight into why they are deemed so important: since the writing of the 10-year strategy for children and young people, in which the children's sector has been heavily engaged, the sector as a whole has based its strategy for the delivery of its provision around these outcomes. They remain at the core of the sector's work, and the sector very much believes that they should remain at the core of government's work in Northern Ireland.”
“One of the aspects of the original clause 1 that ran into difficulty was the six high-level outcomes. From the outset, I was keen that the high-level outcomes that were lifted from the 10-year strategy for children and young people be included in the Bill. However, the Department and I received legal advice that whilst the language was suitable for a strategy, it was perhaps too loosely defined for legislation. That is why there is a shift in emphasis from the outcomes to the concept of well-being, which is more clearly recognised in law and is defined, as referenced in the amendment, in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Within that definition, we reference and have regard to the six high-level outcomes.”
“At this point, I have worked for four years on the Bill and sought at all times to get it right rather than do it quickly, but it is now time to press on. Further delay could, I felt, only harm the Bill, and we are at the stage where decisions have to be made, amendments have to be made and, ultimately, the Assembly has to make a final decision on whether it becomes law. <BR /> <BR />The amendments tabled today are largely those that were shared with the OFMDFM Committee in June. I will seek to highlight where additional amendments have been made. Further work was done over the summer and during this month, but the amendments are largely those that were presented to and scrutinised by the Committee. Amendment Nos 1 to 3 would replace the original clause 1, which I intend to oppose today.”
“However, I am grateful that, individually, parties have continued to engage, even though, due to the current political situation, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister could not put its name to the amendments. I wait to hear from the individual parties, but, in the discussions that have taken place to date, that spirit of cooperation and goodwill towards the Bill appears to continue. <BR /> <BR />I had to make a judgement call on whether I waited until the current political situation settled down, but, at times, these institutions have been hanging by a thread, and the fear that the Bill would fall entirely, given the possible collapse of the Assembly, drove me to press on.”
“I can honestly say that that has not been the case. Every step of the way, OFMDFM officials sought to improve and enhance the Bill and, in their engagement with other Departments, make it more effective. In my view, that has been the intention of all who engaged. <BR /> <BR />It is disappointing today that these amendments were not tabled jointly by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and me. That was due solely to the current political situation, which meant that Executive sign-off was not possible on amendments that are, in many cases, cross-departmental. Undoubtedly, that made tabling the amendments and moving forward with Consideration Stage more difficult to navigate and negotiate.”
“<BR /> <BR />I admit that, when going into the process of engaging with the Department, my fear was that I would have to protect my Bill from possibly being compromised and watered down.”
“Whilst I stand here today presenting these proposals, they very much came from that sector. I also thank the Bill Office, which has assisted me throughout the process and provided invaluable support to me and my team, whom I also thank at this stage. <BR /> <BR />The work that has gone on since January has ultimately been about making the Bill more effective. Cooperation has ensured that expertise has been brought to the table and that conversations have happened between stakeholders to ensure that what started as a single private Member's Bill has very much become collaborative work between Departments, officials, the sector, the Committee and me. That process highlights the value of cooperative working and why a Bill such as this is needed.”
“Indeed, on the face of it, with opposition to various clauses and significant amendments, in one sense, it is a Bill rewritten, but the original intentions that the House debated and supported at Second Stage remain at the core of the Bill. In that sense, the Bill is unchanged: the words are different, but the intentions are largely the same. <BR /> <BR />I express at the outset my gratitude for the cooperation from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Department of Health as well as other Departments, the OFMDFM Committee, which I have engaged with on such a number of occasions that I have lost count, and the children's sector, which has been there all along. This is very much its Bill. The children's NGO sector and, indeed, the Children's Commissioner have been calling for this Bill since 2007.”
“I rise to oppose clause 1 and speak to the amendments. The Bill's intention all along has been to introduce a statutory duty on Departments and other agencies to cooperate in the planning, commissioning and delivery of children's services. The aim is to cut out the waste of resources that results from Departments operating in silos, which ultimately leads to wasted potential in children's lives. Whilst the Bill is very much about processes, its ultimate aim and ambition are to improve opportunities for all children in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Since the Second Stage debate in January, a lot of work has been done on the Bill.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to oppose clause 1 of the Bill and speak to the other amendments. The original intention of the Bill was to introduce a statutory duty on Government —”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. Obviously, it is preferable that we legislate and use the powers that we have available in Northern Ireland. I point to Scotland, where welfare was not devolved, yet it still implemented a fund to negate the impacts of the bedroom tax. Barring failure to political agreement on that, is there any major difference between Westminster legislating and our putting forward the legislative difference? We can still introduce our own top-up fund to mitigate the impacts.”
“Until we can process people, we lock them up. Innocent people, including children and families, are held in detention centres. In the past, we have deported people, who have made their lives here and become a part of our community, by coming into their homes in the middle of the night. We should have a humanitarian response to a humanitarian crisis. We should follow the lead of those citizens who have stepped up and said: "I want to help." This Assembly should help.”
“It is about putting support systems in place to ensure that, when we take in refugees with open arms, as our public has demanded, we do so to offer them a better opportunity. The campaign calls for the provision of English classes, to ensure particularly that children entering education have the best hope and an equal opportunity to realise their potential. It calls for a refugee strategy. This is not something new. Refugees have been coming to Northern Ireland, and the support mechanisms probably have not been sufficient. That is being highlighted now through the attention being brought by the current humanitarian crisis which has been created. <BR /> <BR />The final ask of the Law Centre's campaign is to end the big injustice. That is the assumption, almost, of guilt by those who seek refuge in the UK as a whole.”
“There are those who are expert in the situation faced by refugees and asylum seekers. For example, NICRAS has come out in the media and said: "We have been doing this work for years and we have the expertise, but we need the additional support." Greater numbers are going to come in, and NICRAS will need that support to carry on its excellent work. <BR /> <BR />The SAFER campaign calls for financial help, which does not have to be direct subsidy which, I know, is almost a bogeyman that is created. It is said that these people come here for the £45 per week or whatever it might be that they can access on benefits. I know that I would not risk my life for that, and I am sure that the people travelling in the boats do not risk their lives in the hope of the great boon of our benefits system.”
“The group needs the statutory services to do what they can to facilitate the goodwill that is there among our electorate and ensure that those who wish to help can give real help to those who are in a time of need. <BR /> <BR />The Law Centre has launched its SAFER campaign, calling for a big Northern Ireland welcome for refugees, and it has outlined some practical steps that the Assembly can take. It will need a coordinated response, which will require the Executive to meet and for us to get past our current difficulties and give a real focus to the situation. The SAFER campaign asks us to stop destitution and ensure that refugees, when they come to our shores, have support to ensure that their basic needs are met. It also calls on us to ask the experts.”
“I echo the comments of Mr Allister in welcoming Mr Allen and congratulating him on his maiden speech. <BR /> <BR />I think the first thing that everybody has asked in this humanitarian crisis is this: "What can I do?" It is time for the Assembly and these institutions to ask this question: "What can we do?" The public have stepped up. It has been pointed out that people have offered their spare rooms and their homes. They have offered to help, but what they have not seen is public services step in to facilitate the support that they wish to give. <BR />Towards the end of last week, I visited the Northern Ireland Calais Refugee Solidarity group in north Down. It is running out of space to take donations, so the public is stepping up.”
“Is the Member prepared to accept that, in the filtering process to try to separate the deserving from the non-deserving, as he perhaps see it, we could contribute to human suffering, whereby more people will die, rather than simply having a more humanitarian approach and giving people the benefit of the doubt in the first instance?”
“I thank the Acting First Minister for her answer. It is very welcome that these childcare strategy proposals have been brought forward. However, many will feel that, without the finance to back them up, they will be worthy targets without actions to go along with them. Is the Acting First Minister confident that the finance will be made available to fund the strategy?”
“The Minister spoke about the independence of the university. What strategic role does he have in those decisions; for example, the decision to close the school of modern languages, leaving us in Northern Ireland without third-level education in German? That seems to be counter-strategic, given his aims. What influence can he bring to bear?”
“We saw the level of engagement in Scotland and how, when people are asked a question, they engage intelligently and respond. That was the same in the Republic of Ireland with the equal marriage referendum. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better and deserve to have their voice heard.”