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 16 of 28.
“The parties who reached those compromises had the legitimacy of saying that they made those compromises and they were tough compromises but the people of Northern Ireland accepted them. The failure of Haass and Stormont House is that the negotiators asked their parties to support them; they never asked the people. Until we do that, we will not get an agreement. Until we go back to the people of Northern Ireland and say that this is the next stage in their peace process and the next step of the people's agreement and ask them whether they support that step and us, as parties, taking that step, we will not get a sustainable solution. <BR /> <BR />We need a referendum in Northern Ireland. Whatever the outcome of the talks, a compromise should be proposed, and it should be put to the people.”
“We have had parties constantly watching their backs for fear of being outflanked; that, should they support a compromise, the opposing parties within their communities will somehow steal a march on them. We need to get a way around that. How did we do that before? What was the success of the Good Friday Agreement? Whatever failures there have been, it created these institutions and, for a period, it provided peace and relative stability in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />What has been different about the recent talks? They have all been behind closed doors, they have been party political and there has been no engagement with the general public. The Good Friday Agreement was agreed after a referendum.”
“Urgent talks are being convened again today involving the same parties, the same issues and even in the same venue as they were last winter. Those who caused the crisis are being entrusted to resolve it. It strikes me that that is an example of doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result, which, as we know, is the definition of madness. <BR /> <BR />We need a compromise, but we need to recognise the failures of Haass and the original Stormont House talks. Why did those talks fail? In both cases, a document was produced and a compromise was reached, and, in both cases, the negotiators could not sell those proposals to their parties.”
“There has certainly been some commentary in the media that suggests that we are some way towards an agreement on welfare. Given the public interest and in the interests of transparency, can the Minister shed some light on what that agreement might look like?”
“I will be very quick. The Member made the point that we have integrated further and higher education. Does that not challenge his point that our society is so polarised that integration cannot happen?”
“Today, NICIE has called for an independent review of our education system, and I think that we need to consider that because there are political reasons that are putting barriers up to the progress of integrated education in Northern Ireland.”
“To say that parents in Northern Ireland do not choose integrated education is like saying that people in Northern Ireland do not choose sunshine: it is not a choice for many parents. There are now 64, I think, integrated schools of 1,200. Not every parent who sends their child to school has the option of sending their child to an integrated school, and, indeed, many of our integrated schools are oversubscribed, so even parents who are choosing integrated education where there appears to be a choice are being denied that choice. Until every parent has that option equal to each other ethos of education available, that claim cannot be made. As Mr Lunn pointed out, poll after poll has shown that parents want integrated education, and it is the politicians who are putting the barriers in place. We have to remove those barriers.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. The point is that the integrated sector has to operate in a system in which there is selection, and different schools have made different decisions on how they approach that. The point is that the children go to the same school: there may be streams in those schools, but we do not set up different schools with different headmasters and different assemblies to deal with children from different religious backgrounds or with different academic abilities. <BR /> <BR />Integrated schools take pupils from all socio-economic backgrounds and incorporate the full breadth of society in one building and under one head teacher and ethos. I go back to the point that Mr Newton made that parents are ultimately not choosing integrated education.”
“<BR /> <BR />Integrated education is about more than just Protestant and Catholic children coming up together. It is about children of all faiths being educated in one school and teaching them that, although they may have different religions and cultural backgrounds, those differences are not a barrier and that, in education, there is no difference between them. It is not, as some presume, a secular system, although I would challenge that and say that perhaps it should be. At the heart of integrated schools is much of the religious ethos that runs through other schools. <BR /> <BR />Integrated education is all-ability, which is often missed when people talk about the performance of integrated schools. Integrated schools take pupils of all abilities —”
“Instead, we chose to propose, and this has been promoted in the Programme for Government and by many of the parties in the Assembly, taking the two schools and housing them in one building or on one campus, thereby saving money in capital costs but maintaining our failing system of segregation. <BR /> <BR />We hear the word "shared" being used, and it is a clever tool. Any PR firm would congratulate the Executive on using it, because it sounds like "integrated" and sounds as though we are tackling the historical divisions in Northern Ireland society. Shared education can equally mean two Catholic schools sharing a single building. What societal benefit does that have other than to save the two schools money? It saves on capital costs and running costs, but it does not achieve the societal objective of educating our children together.”
“The reality, which this report seeks to hide, is that shared education is a meaningless concept. It has no definition yet and very little to recommend it. If we were being honest, we would admit that it is nothing but a repackaged and marketed reform of our segregated system. <BR /> <BR />A problem with falling enrolment numbers and classrooms with empty desks was identified, and there were two possible solutions. One was to take two schools in the one area that were both undersubscribed and make one school. In many areas, that would have meant one integrated school.”
“I will meet the Chief Constable later this week. I have sought to meet the Secretary of State and I will seek answers to those questions, but it is clear that we need evidence. We need calm heads, but we also need — reference was made to it — a tipping point. We need to say what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in our society. It is clear that the gun must be out of Northern Ireland politics. We cannot continue on any other basis.”
“I believe that we need an independent evaluation, whether it is the re-establishment of the IMC or another body. We need something that the community can have confidence in and that can bring together the evidence of the PSNI and an Garda Síochána and, indeed, any information available to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, because it is only on facts and evidence that we can make an assessment of what state our political process is in and whether the institutions can continue as they currently exist. <BR /> <BR />As I said, if the answer to the three questions is yes — if the IRA still exists, if it is engaged in criminality and/or terrorism and if it is inextricably linked to Sinn Féin — we have to question the role of that party in our government.”
“It has certainly been strongly stated by the Chief Constable that members of the IRA were involved in this murder, but there are questions about whether the organisation itself was. We have had mixed signals: the Chief Constable said that he believes that the IRA is on a purely peaceful path; the Garda Síochána has suggested that the IRA is still engaged in criminality. Those are questions that we need answers to, and we need evidence and definite conclusions. <BR /> <BR />For many, it is taken as read that, if the IRA exists, it is still inextricably linked to Sinn Féin. We also need an independent assessment of that because, if Sinn Féin says that the IRA does not exist, it cannot say whether it is linked to that organisation.”
“I am consistently asked three questions, which I need answers to in order to make my assessment of what this means for our politics and our peace process. Does the IRA still exist? If so, are they engaged in criminality and/or terrorism? If so, are they still inextricably linked to Sinn Féin? <BR /> <BR />The first question is whether they still exist. The Police Service of Northern Ireland says that they still exist, the Garda Síochána says that they still exist and the Secretary of State says that the IRA still exists. Sinn Féin denies it, but other sources seem to be unanimous in that assessment. What does that mean? Are they engaged in criminality? Are they engaged in killing?”
“I condemn the murders of Gerard Davison and Kevin McGuigan and extend my condolences to their families. Whatever their past, they are victims of terrible murders. It is regrettable that such murders still take place in Northern Ireland. They are not acceptable today, and they never were acceptable. Indeed, it is regrettable that that type of violence persists. It is true that it is not just in republican communities. In my constituency, loyalism still holds a grip of terror on communities. That is deeply regrettable, and we must continue to strive to address and change it. <BR /> <BR />Of course, there are political ramifications of that murder because of the statement that members of the IRA were involved in it.”
“We cannot maximise the so-called benefits of this proposal if we do not change those things, and we cannot change them if we cut public investment by £300 million.”
“Northern Ireland is still undoubtedly behind much of Europe in its public transport infrastructure and provision.”
“A week after the announcement of significant cuts to our universities, it is ludicrous to propose that we take what could be up to £300 million extra per year out of our public services and say that we can still maintain the skills level that companies demand when they are looking at investing in Northern Ireland. Last week, the languages department of the Ulster University was cut to the point where, in Northern Ireland, you will not be able to study German at degree level. This will mean that, when looking at making international trade, we will not even be able to communicate with some of the business partners that we propose to have in the future. Indeed, transportation infrastructure is another area that is ranked higher than corporate taxation on the PwC list.”
“Indeed, for the same report, there was a survey of companies looking to invest in the UK. They listed the priority factors for them investing in the UK, and corporate taxation was 17th on the list, behind a number of very interesting other factors, including political stability. Instead of the unanimity that we have on the corporate tax break, we need to get unanimity of purpose on governance in Northern Ireland, our structures and on the stability of politics. That will do much more to make Northern Ireland attractive for investment than cutting corporation tax will. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, the need for skills is oft repeated.”
“The Celtic Tiger, which was the key argument for reducing corporation tax, did not happen until 1980, showing that corporation tax is not a key driver in producing a turnaround in an economy. In its report, 'Corporation Tax — Game Changer or Game Over', PwC stated that it could not find:”
“He attacked me in his conference speech last year, saying that we could not afford the costs of protecting those on benefits and that we must progress to reducing corporation tax, despite the cost of protecting those on welfare being a fraction of the cost of the corporate subsidy. <BR /> <BR />The moral basis for that is certainly unsound. It would be unfair to impose further cuts on our society when we have had so many cuts forced upon us by the Conservative Government. The economics do not even make sense. The unanimity among the now four Executive parties, supported by the Ulster Unionists, that we must make the move needs to be challenged. The whole assumption has been that we must compete with the Republic of Ireland, but it is worth noting that the Republic of Ireland reduced its corporation tax rate in 1958.”
“Whilst I welcome the report and, as a member of the Committee, know the work that has gone into it, I oppose its basic assumption, which is that we should reduce the level of corporation tax in Northern Ireland either to the rate in the Republic of Ireland or, as some would suggest, lower. <BR /> <BR />It angers me to hear some in the House say that we absolutely must get on with cutting the incomes of the poorest in our society by implementing welfare cuts so that we can get on with providing this proposed subsidy to some of the largest businesses and most profitable organisations in Northern Ireland. To me, the moral absurdity of that is striking, and such calls have been made from a number of sources, not least the leader of the Alliance Party, Mr David Ford.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. As a member of the Committee, I can say that we heard representations from business groups, including, I think I am right in saying, the CBI, which stated why it saw our position as being better within the EU than without it. Does he believe that those organisations are not best placed to make such a judgement?”
“I thank the junior Minister for her answer. One of the proposals from the Secretary of State Iain Duncan Smith is to move away from the measure of poverty at 60% of the average income. There has been plenty of documented evidence of how inequality impinges upon the prosperity of the poorest in society. Will the junior Minister give a commitment that Northern Ireland will not move away from that important measure of inequality and poverty?”
“While I welcome the long-awaited publication of the consultation on the childcare strategy, to some extent the strategy will only be as good as the resources that follow it. I ask the junior Minister what work has been done to cost the proposals in the childcare strategy. Are those costs likely to be met?”
“We must make sure that they find a better life here than that life from which they have fled.”
“Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. We need a Europe-wide coordinated response. No country can solve this problem on its own, but the UK should be playing its part to help others who are less fortunate, as it is still a wealthy nation. Our people have made it clear that that is what they want to see this country do, and I think that the Prime Minister should heed the words and calls of the constituents of the UK. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland, for its part, must ensure that it heeds the words of the Northern Ireland Community of Refugees and Asylum Seekers (NICRAS), which has said that, as an organisation, it would struggle to provide support. We must ensure that we play our part. Whilst we cannot decide the numbers that are taken in, we can decide how we allocate support if and when refugees arrive on our shores.”
“Unfortunately, it is a humanitarian issue, but it is also a political issue, because political decisions have to be made to ensure that the UK acts as a refuge for those who seek sanctuary. The Prime Minister recently rejected the EU Commission's call for the UK to take in 18,000 refugees as part of a coordinated European response.”
“You cannot fail to be moved by the images that have been shared across the world of the current refugee crisis, but it is hard not to reflect on how disappointing and embarrassing the UK Government's response had been prior to the picture of Aylan Kurdi being circulated. To that point, the UK had taken in only 216 Syrian refugees. When compared with many of our European neighbours, we certainly could not have been deemed to have stepped up, and whilst I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has committed to taking thousands more, I regret that it took that image and a public outcry to force him and the Government to step up to the plate. <BR /> <BR />There has been a lack of leadership.”
“I associate myself and the Green Party in Northern Ireland with the comments made by those who have spoken. I personally congratulate Her Majesty The Queen on this remarkable achievement and wish her many more years of good health and continuation in her role.”
“While the new code also upholds Members' right to freedom of expression, Members are nonetheless required not to subject anyone to unreasonable and excessive personal attack. <BR /> <BR />I hope that Members will respect this requirement and that this is the last time that the Committee needs to bring forward a report like this one. I urge the House to support the motion.”
“I will clarify my comments for the Member, which Mr Wilson chose not to do. When I said that we had no other option, I meant it as a figure of speech, in that the only option for the integrity of the Committee was to recommend the imposition of a sanction. To do anything less would undermine the measures that we have in place to ensure that Members are accountable for their conduct. <BR /> <BR />I conclude my remarks by reminding all Members of the importance of treating others with courtesy and respect. Our new code provides that Members should show respect and consideration for others at all times and should work responsibly with other Members of the Assembly for the benefit of the whole community.”
“Therefore, if a Member's behaviour in Committee was so improper, unreasonable and persistent that a Committee was unable to exercise its functions, that Member could be in breach of the new code. <BR /> <BR />Objectivity and impartiality should be at the heart of what we are doing here. An independent investigation by the Commissioner for Standards has concluded that Mr Wilson breached the code of conduct. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has also concluded that Mr Wilson breached the code of conduct. Mr Wilson was given the opportunity to apologise, but, regrettably, he has decided not to do so. If he had done so, we would not be having this debate today. However, as he has not apologised, the Committee really has no other option but to recommend the imposition of a sanction. To do anything less would undermine the measures —”
“We believe that Mr Wilson's decision not to clarify his comment publicly was revealing as to the context in which he meant it. <BR /> <BR />Speaking more generally, I emphasise that the right to freedom of expression should not be misunderstood as allowing Members to bully or harass others. Clearly, that sort of conduct is unacceptable. That is why the existing code and our new code provide that Members should not subject others to unreasonable and excessive personal attack. <BR /> <BR />I also want to address the claim that Mr Wilson's outbursts had, on two occasions, led to the suspension of meetings of the Committee for Social Development. Beyond a finding of bringing the Assembly into disrepute, the current code is silent on such matters. The new code of conduct, agreed last week by the Assembly, provides that Members shall not:”
“Therefore, in the political context, emotive and aggressive comments that would not otherwise be acceptable are tolerated. <BR /> <BR />However, previous judgements have made it perfectly clear that the enhanced protection does not apply to politicians when they are making gratuitous personal insults. That is the case law in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights, which defines freedom of expression. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Wilson's "thug" comment was an untrue and gratuitous personal comment rather than a form of political expression. In coming to that conclusion, the Committee spent a considerable time considering legal advice and precedents. We considered the context of the meeting and what Mr Wilson said before and after the comment.”
“There are memorable examples of pithy political put-downs; they can be acerbic and confrontational but also eloquent and witty. But let me be clear: calling someone a thug does not fall into that category. <BR /> <BR />I want to address the point that Mr Wilson's right to freedom of expression meant that he was entitled to make those comments. The Committee has consistently said — as recently as last week — that it supports and upholds Members' right to freedom of expression, even when Members are expressing views that are offensive or provocative. We also recognise that the law gives enhanced protection to political expression and that it protects not only the substance of what is said but the form in which it is conveyed.”
“Some contributions have been unnecessarily fractious, at times personal and at odds with the principles of respect and good working relationships that the Assembly endorsed only last week. We should recognise that, when Members display a lack of respect and courtesy, it lowers the public's view of the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />No one is trying to sanitise or remove all colour from political debate; we accept entirely that the cut and thrust of politics means that, from time to time, there will be robust exchanges. Members need to have a thick skin when being criticised by their opponents. In fact, there is a long and honourable tradition of parliamentary insults through the years across the political spectrum, from Disraeli and Churchill to Healy and Foot.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I disagree with it. I am pleased to hear that he will serve as Chair for a while longer. <BR /> <BR />We should act corporately. When there is division in the Committee, I would like to see, rather than having Committee members disagree with one another in the Chamber, those who disagree with the corporate decision being at least silent if they cannot reflect the view of the Committee. <BR /> <BR />That is all that I am going to say as an individual Member. I will move on to summing up on behalf of the Committee as best I can, acknowledging that there was a division on this issue and that it was a majority vote. <BR /> <BR />I am disappointed by the tone that the debate has taken at times.”
“The Standards and Privileges Committee should set a standard; we should act corporately and speak with one voice.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. We already have an Executive who publicly squabble and, indeed, where one member takes another member to court. That in itself sets a bad example for these institutions.”
“When Members step through the door into those meetings or we take our closed sessions, there is no need to play party politics. We should consider a complaint on its merits and on the basis of the evidence presented to us by the commissioner. We should give a corporate response. Indeed, on a previous complaint, I suggested — it was agreed by the Committee — that only the Chair should make public comment. Unfortunately, that was not upheld, despite the agreement of the Committee — one member broke it — but that was the right approach and it is how we should go forward as a Committee. We already have —”
“Before summing up on behalf of the Committee, I wish to make a few personal comments as a member of the Green Party. First, I thank Mr Spratt, who has most recently chaired the Committee. I read today that he intends to retire, and I want to thank him for his service to the Committee. To his replacement as Chair of the Committee, whoever that shall be, and to the other members of the Committee, I make a bit of a request as someone who, since being elected, has seen it as a privilege to take part in the Committee and recognises the position that we have. The point about party political point scoring has been made. In complaints made to the Committee and in how Committee members have sometimes responded in Assembly debates, it has become very party political. I believe that the Committee is a quasi-judicial body and should act as such.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Am I right in thinking that legal advice provided to a Committee is in itself privileged and that disclosing it in a public forum is in itself a breach of privilege?”
“I thank the Member for giving way, and I take his point. However, some of the parties we face in the Assembly have larger mandates that he and I do, and we still challenge them.”
“<BR /> <BR />This Budget perpetuates a failing economic policy that, since 2007, has seen an increase in the gap of incomes of Northern Ireland residents in relation to their counterparts in Great Britain. It is based on 100% cuts, and it is regressive in that it seeks to take from the poor and to give to the better off. The principles that underpin the Budget, the record of the Executive and the previous Executive are principles and a record that the Green Party cannot support.”
“Indeed, on other issues, they keep talking about the cost of division, which is great. They have been in Government since 2010. What have they done about the cost of division since they have been in Government? The Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy is a joke, and it has not even been implemented, so a poor strategy has not been implemented. I will not take lectures about my party, as we have done from the opposition Bench. I take it as a compliment that Mr Farry thinks that I can destroy the whole Budget on my own. He obviously thinks that I am very powerful, but I certainly do not take his chiding, and I do not share the ideology of his party, which says that we must afford corporate tax cuts at the expense of the poor, the sick and the disabled.”
“I am sure that this is a point that Mr Allister and indeed Mr McCallister would make: it is a fundamental right of any opposition to criticise the Government's Budget, to vote against it and to highlight how, if in Government, his or her party would do things differently. That is exactly what I am doing, and I think that is what I am expected to do. <BR /> <BR />The Alliance Party may, as Mr Attwood said, roll over first, but that is not the position of the Green Party. The Green Party did not support welfare reform before there were any top-ups. Indeed, we do not say, as Mr Dickson did, that we just have to accept the democratic mandate of the Conservatives, so we will just implement everything that they say through the Stormont House Agreement and everything else that they pass down. My party would not take that approach.”
“That is exactly what the drive for the corporation tax reduction is: "Yes, thank you for the cuts; we are struggling to implement them, but can we have some more, in the region of £300 million per year?". We would not have taken that approach, so I do not have to justify how we would make up for the problems of the Stormont House Agreement. <BR /> <BR />Coming back to the criticism from Mr Farry, he suggests that, somehow, this is the Green Party's fault. He has written recently in our local paper about this on the problems with the Budget. It is almost turning it on its head. His party, which has two Ministers in the Government, seeks to blame those outside the Government.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I and my party did not negotiate, sign up to or agree to the Stormont House Agreement. We did not agree to link welfare to redundancies in the Civil Service or to the victims issues that Mr Attwood referred to. You are almost saying this: if you assume that we have the Stormont House Agreement, which you did not sign up to, then what would you do? The point is that we would not be in this position because we would not have gone in. <BR /> <BR />Of course, one of the great drivers of the Stormont House Agreement — for doing what I see as the bidding of the Conservative Government — was to get the power to reduce corporation tax, which, of course, my party does not seek to do. We do not seek to say, "Thank you very much for the cuts; can we have some more please?".”