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 18 of 28.
“Earlier this afternoon, I hosted the launch of a 'VIEW' magazine issue specifically dedicated to child poverty. The levels of child poverty in Northern Ireland were highlighted by each of the speakers. It is currently estimated that around one in five children lives in poverty. Professor Paddy Hillyard, who spoke at the event — I have seen him speak on a number of occasions — has often highlighted how, since 2007, Budgets and policies that have passed through the House have shifted resources from the poor to the better-off. Effectively, what has been overseen is a process of robbing the poor to pay the rich. An example of that is the rates cap, which currently treats everyone living in a house worth over £400,000 as if they were living in a house worth £400,000.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Given that the welfare money that is coming in — the £2 million that was referred to — goes directly to the poorest families and that we have 100,000 children living in absolute poverty, surely giving the money to the families of those children is the right thing to do, rather than taking it away from them.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Of course, his party supports the devolution of corporation tax and its reduction to 12·5% or 10%. Will he outline how his party would pay for that and where the cuts would be made?”
“I do not know whether there is any legitimacy to that claim, but I hope that, as part of any investigations, the building regulations are examined to see whether there is any way that such tragedies can be prevented through better regulation or better enforcement. It is clear that if a balcony is built it should be built properly, well and to the highest standards to ensure health and safety. We do not want to speak about another such tragedy ever again. <BR /> <BR />With that, I will conclude. I just hope that those who are injured can recover speedily and fully.”
“We all look for a way to connect with this tragedy. We will all have different ways, but, like others who spoke, I rise as a father who can only imagine the suffering of anyone who loses a child. It can only be imagined. I know how much I suffer when one of my children stubs their knee. We feel such an affection for our children that to lose a child in such a tragic way can bring only unimaginable grief. I am sure that no words that I can offer today can mitigate that grief, but I think that it is important that we offer our condolences and best wishes to those families. <BR /> <BR />The only thing that I would like to add is that I read one worrying quote from a former city official who said that it was only a "decorative" balcony.”
“I rise to add my sympathies and those of the Green Party in Northern Ireland to the families of those who have so tragically died and to offer our best wishes to those who are injured and to wish them a speedy recovery.”
“Why, then, have the Member and his party, through their position in the Health Ministry, not brought the guidelines forward to ensure that women in those circumstances can receive that provision through the NHS?”
“A black-and-white position was being painted that you are either anti-abortion or pro-abortion. I was pointing out that there are grey areas. There are people who would say that they are anti-abortion but would support abortion in the case where a woman's life is at risk. I have not heard a Member who is supposedly in the pro-life camp say that they would support an abortion when a woman's life is at risk. Does the Member support abortion when a woman's life is at risk?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. In all the evidence that the Committee received, did it receive any evidence that the Marie Stopes clinic was operating outside the law? Did it receive any evidence that the care that the Marie Stopes clinic provided was in any way inadequate or unsafe? Was there any evidence to that effect?”
“Criminalising a woman who seeks healthcare or a doctor who provides it is horrendous. Allowing a sentence of up to 10 years for someone who provides healthcare or who seeks it is obscene. I am opposed to the amendment.”
“It is honest. Thank you, Mr Wells. <BR /> <BR />A woman contacted me today. Many outside will have lost interest in the debate at this late hour, but I suspect that she will still be paying attention. She was pregnant, and it was very much a wanted child, but there was a fatal foetal abnormality. She went elsewhere for treatment because she could not receive it here in Northern Ireland, and there were complications. The decisions that we have made in the House have meant that her situation was more difficult than it had to be. Had she been able to receive treatment in Northern Ireland, the place where she was born, and had she got the help and support of her politicians, we could have mitigated, in some way, a very difficult circumstance for her. <BR /> <BR />This is a health issue; it has no place in a debate on criminal justice.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I was coming to that. I use the term "sentience": when is there sentience in a being? There is life in many things in our world that we do not give value to, and I have to say that, in those early stages of pregnancy, I give more value to the woman's life, health, well-being and choice. We should be informed by the science on where we make the threshold. My party — I make no apologies for it, and we are not ashamed of it — supports the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act.”
“Where there is consciousness and will — I give way to the Member.”
“I do not understand this definition of "unborn child". It has no definition in law, and I do not recognise it. I do not accept that there is a human life from the moment of conception. I believe that our lawmaking should be informed by the science. I believe that the position of protection from the moment of conception is, for many in the House, informed by religion; I do not share those views and beliefs. My views on the issue are informed by the science.”
“I work with it and support it on many issues to do with rights and equality. On this issue, it is saying to women, "You must fight harder for this right. You must fight longer for this right". On this issue, the SDLP is blocking their path. The SDLP, the party that claims to be a party of equality and a party that says that there should be no hierarchy of victims, today said to women who are victims of violence that the SDLP would give them protection. However, it says to women who are victims of rape, "Do not seek the SDLP's support". Some victims are more equal than others. Some women are more equal than others.”
“Check Hansard, Mr Maginness. <BR /> <BR />The point that I wish to make is that he said that you could not be "pro-life, but". I ask every one of you here who says that you are anti-abortion, are you "anti-abortion, but"? Do you support the current law? If you support the current law, you are anti-abortion, but in the case where a woman's life is at risk. If you do not support the current law and do not support the protection of a woman's life, shame on you. I am interested to know which it is because, in some cases, I believe that there are Members of the House who would rather see a woman die than an abortion be carried out, so ideological are their views. <BR /> <BR />I am most disappointed in the position of the SDLP. It is a party that was born out of the civil rights movement.”
“I respect that, in other cases, he did not refuse, but he allowed two interventions from Members who supported his case and allowed none from me. Hansard will show that, subsequent to my request for an intervention, he gave way to another Member. I accept that the Member usually gives way — it is not a slight — but I was disappointed.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I am not sure about time pressure.”
“<BR /> <BR />I can only conclude that those who support the amendment, particularly those who have also frustrated the process of bringing forward clear guidelines, are seeking to restrict access, even in the current situations. I asked Mr Maginness to give way, and he refused: I was disappointed by that. He made the point that you cannot be pro-life —”
“I will support regulation of Marie Stopes that is equal to regulation of the NHS, if that comes forward to the House. <BR /> <BR />In Northern Ireland, because there is not confidence that provision will be provided on the NHS, even within the very limited circumstances that our law will allow, the only recourse for some women is, unfortunately, to go to a private clinic. Mr Wells referred to those who come up from the Republic of Ireland, but he knows only too well of the 1,000-plus women every year who have to go across to Great Britain. We may be importing the problems of others, but we are exporting our own problems. We, as an Assembly, should provide the health service that women need and seek in the country or state of their birth.”
“Mr Maginness used the word "control": they want to control this issue and to control the choices that a woman has when she finds herself in a difficult situation. Bring forward regulation, and I will support it: propose a ban, and I will oppose it and sign a petition of concern. I will do all in my power to make sure that you do not get your way on this.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I have always sought transparency, including on other issues — and I will not get off the subject of the debate — but in areas where his party has opposed it. I have no problem with transparency; I have no problem with regulation. I proffer the suggestion that the reason why regulation has not come from successive DUP Health Ministers, and the reason why regulation for Marie Stopes has not come forward, is because the DUP wants a ban in order to restrict abortion, even in the cases where a woman's life is at risk, by not providing sufficient guidance through the NHS professionals and by banning Marie Stopes.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Perhaps he has given me a suggestion for Further Consideration Stage. Let us look at that if there is time. <BR /> <BR />The lack of guidelines further restricts our already restrictive law. Just as Mr Allister was finishing, I sought for him to give way. To be fair, he was finishing his speech. If a woman can receive the treatment she needs on our NHS and can go with confidence and certainty that she will receive that treatment, why would she choose a private clinic? Why would she choose to pay if she could receive that service in confidence and free at the point of use?”
“<BR /> <BR />As we are well aware, there is a lack of guidelines for health practitioners as to when they can carry out an abortion within the current law without fear of criminal conviction — criminal conviction for seeking to protect a woman whose life may be at risk — if they are found to have acted outside the very limited circumstances prescribed by Northern Ireland's law.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is very limited scope for abortion in Northern Ireland, and we have had much discussion about it and about the restricted circumstances in which it can be provided. Indeed, those who support amendment No 34 take great pride in the very limited circumstances in which it can be provided in Northern Ireland. What circumstances are those? They are in order to protect a woman's life. Those are the limited circumstances. The First Minister has made it clear that any attempt even to take one step beyond that and extend it to fatal foetal abnormality cases would be blocked at the Executive and would not make it to the Floor of the House.”
“The Justice Bill has included provisions for such heinous crimes as the sexual abuse of children and physical and mental violence against women. With those heinous crimes, parties in this House have conspired to include seeking or providing an abortion to protect a woman's life if it is provided in a private facility. I would be overjoyed if I believed that there was such vehement opposition in the House to the privatisation of our health service but, sadly, that is not the motivation behind the amendment. Indeed, when challenged on that point, Mr Poots made it very clear, in another provision, that he has no problem with privatisation, but, in this, he supports an amendment that seeks to limit health provision.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. We have heard the evidence time and again, and it has been through the courts. I would absolutely like to see all health provision carried under the NHS, but we have seen time and time again in the evidence presented that there is uncertainty around the law. We have heard evidence from doctors and midwives who have said that the law is uncertain and that they cannot act with confidence and know that they are acting within the law.”
“Why does Mr Cameron believe that we should have lesser protections than our European neighbours? Why does he feel that such protections should not apply to all our citizens? <BR /> <BR />For those reasons and for the benefit of humanity, including the people of the United Kingdom, I believe that we must keep the Human Rights Act.”
“I will not give way. I have only one minute. <BR /> <BR />The other problem is that the Tories have not outlined which rights they wish to take away from us. This is clearly not about strengthening our rights. There is nothing to stop the UK Government giving their citizens additional rights over and above those given to other citizens in Europe. Will they tell us which rights they wish the people of the UK not to have that their European neighbours have?”
“The effect would simply be that we could not take such cases in the UK. The irony is that those who seek to repatriate powers would actually be saying, "Our courts will not deal with these cases. Our citizens will have to go to Strasbourg or Europe". They would be given no recourse to justice under human rights law in the UK. In terms of a British —”
“In his speech, Mr Givan talked about deportation as if, somehow, that in itself deals with the problem. Of course, that just says, "Well, it's not our problem any more. We can export the problem". It is about having a collectivist approach to work together. If we stand alone, we are lesser. The Little Britain approach espoused by UKIP and being supported by others today actually weakens Britain. It may give us more powers over some of the issues outlined to make the decisions within a UK context, but, on the international stage, we make ourselves irrelevant. We go it alone and stand alone, and we would be the weaker for it. <BR /> <BR />The irony in some of what is being said is that the repeal of the Human Rights Act would not exclude the UK from the remit of the European Court of Human Rights.”
“There is a requirement to bring it to the table on human rights. What stronger reason can there be for a collectivist agenda for human rights? <BR /> <BR />The clue is in the name: human rights. They are not British, Irish, German or French rights; they are human rights. They recognise the common values, needs and protections that we all require, regardless of borders or where we happen to have been born. Those are the values that we should protect. They are the reason why we should be proud, at times, to cede some power; in return, there will be collective agreement that no citizen in Europe should live without the most basic protections for humanity.”
“OK. Thank you, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Tom Elliott gave me the strongest argument to support the motion. When he talked about the origin of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Second World War, he said, "It wasn't us who had a problem. We had human rights. We had rights in Britain. We've a proud tradition of human rights. It was those other countries in Europe that had the problem". What better reason is there to spread the values of Britishness that Mr Elliott is proud of — indeed, I am proud of them as well — across the rest of Europe? The conflict that we saw was because of the lack of common international agreement. We took those values for granted here, but other countries had to be brought to the table. We still see Europe doing it with countries such as Turkey, which is looking to join the EU.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not accept that the judges are making their rulings and decisions based on laws that were created through democratic processes? They are making those decisions in the context of democratic laws.”
“Given that the Good Friday Agreement, which, admittedly, his party does not support, was endorsed by the majority of people in Northern Ireland and in Ireland as a whole and introduced the Human Rights Act into Northern Ireland, should we not defend it on behalf of our people?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Mr Givan made the point about the number of pieces of law that came into effect because of democracy.”
“It will still increase hardship for the most vulnerable in our society and it is still a Bill that seeks to punish the poor for the excesses of the rich. This is a Bill that neither I nor my party can support.”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention, but it does not take away from my point that what we do with our Budget will be in our power. If we want to put in mitigation measures, whether they are for welfare cuts implemented here or implemented by the Tory Government, we can decide how we spend our block grant. How much that will be is decided by Westminster, but how we allocate it, and whether we choose to protect our most vulnerable, are decisions that will be made by the Executive, and the Budget has to be passed by the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />We are here today to debate the legislation. The first draft of the Bill came to us in October 2012, and my party sought to make amendments, as did the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists, to improve it. Little changes were made. This is, effectively, still a replica of the Bill that went through GB.”
“I will give way in one second. <BR /> <BR />They say that because that is the course they intend to go down rather than the one they have to go down.”
“<BR /> <BR />As was pointed out, in fact, the Scottish Government, which currently does not have power over welfare reform, still implemented their own mitigation when it came to the bedroom tax, to make sure that no one would be worse off. We still have those powers and it would still be our decision. Those who say that there will be no mitigation if welfare is taken over by the Government —”
“I fail to understand that, because, first, welfare is devolved and, secondly, there was no extra money in our block grant out of which the mitigation fund was going to be taken. That was a decision that could have been taken by the Executive without including it in any Stormont House Agreement, tying it to corporation tax or to public sector redundancies: it was completely separate. <BR /> <BR />For that reason, I fail to understand those who say that if we do not pass the Bill today the Tory Government will implement the cuts and we will not have any mitigation measures. That is a decision for you in the Executive to make, because it is your Budget and block grant, for which you will seek agreement on how it should be spent. The Tories cannot say that you cannot put in those mitigation measures.”
“It is clear that the Stormont House Agreement, the Budget and, to some extent, the Programme for Government are inseparable. These are agreements between the Executive parties as to how to move forward. You certainly cannot separate the Budget from the Stormont House Agreement, because it was predicated on what was agreed. I cannot explain why some people appeared to sign up to the Stormont House Agreement, and certainly signed up to the Budget, and then seemed to step back. I can say that the Green Party has been consistent in its opposition to the Stormont House Agreement. <BR /> <BR />Let us be clear; there was almost a sort of gratitude that the UK Government would let us introduce our own mitigation measures.”
“Indeed, we also do not know where we will be after three years. <BR /> <BR />As I said, a number of things have been debated. Some have touched on the legislation. We have also discussed the Stormont House Agreement and, indeed, the Stormont Castle agreement, which I was not party to and in which my party was not involved, the Budget and maybe something that has not been talked about so much but that is tied into all of this: the Programme for Government.”
“We have talked about food banks, and that would mean people subsisting purely on the handouts of food banks with no protection from the state for 18 months. If you are unemployed or on disability benefits, you would see those benefits cut for 18 months. That will drive people to destitution and despair, and we have seen examples in Great Britain where it has driven people to their deaths. That is not something that my party can vote for. That is not something that my party could stand over. <BR /> <BR />We have seen some reassurance in the Social Development Minister's paper as to where mitigation measures would kick in for the disability additions for children. However, again, the figures to match that are absent, so we are left to trust in whether there will be full or partial mitigation.”
“<BR /> <BR />Another issue that my party has consistently raised and sought amendments on at previous stages is the sanctions regime, which is perhaps one of the most odious parts of the welfare cuts in GB and, indeed, here in Northern Ireland. It is worth remembering that we are debating the legislation today. It is not the Stormont House Agreement, the deals around it or the proposed mitigation measures. None of those are in the legislation, which remains virtually unchanged from the day that it came to the Assembly in October 2012. The legislation that we are debating would allow for an 18-month suspension of benefits as a penalty to claimants. For some, that would mean 18 months with no income whatsoever.”
“In other words, as I have said during previous stages, he has made it clear today that, where alternative housing exists and where personal circumstances change, the bedroom tax will be implemented and people will be worse off under this legislation. I do not know how that is reconciled with the DUP's strong stance against the bedroom tax in the Westminster election. I certainly cannot reconcile it. Indeed, I cannot reconcile it with my meeting with the First Minister, who told me that there would be no bedroom tax. Again, the Minister has put it on public record today that, in certain circumstances, the bedroom tax will be applied and people will be worse off because of it.”
“I certainly sympathise with anyone who challenges the Tory Government's austerity agenda, but the proposal to cut £300 million from our own block grant voluntarily is this Northern Ireland Executive, which I stand in opposition to, making their own austerity cuts voluntarily. They can blame no one and, indeed, asked for the consent of the Tory Government to do so. <BR />In its five-point plan, the DUP made it very clear that the one issue that it was going to Westminster on was no bedroom tax. Yet, again, the Social Development Minister has confirmed, and we have seen it; the legislation brings in the powers for the implementation of the bedroom tax. Whilst the mitigation measures would protect some from its implementation, the Social Development Minister said today:”
“Well, in the lifetime of this Executive, the income gap between Northern Ireland and other regions of the UK has increased. Yes, we have had limited growth, but so has everywhere else: it was called the financial recovery and it was global. In terms of what this Executive have delivered, the income gap between Northern Ireland and Great Britain has increased under this Executive. The great boon of foreign direct investment that was supposed to lift us out of poverty has certainly not achieved that in the term of this Executive, and I do not believe that it would be achieved if we reduced corporation tax and took a further £300 million a year out of the block grant voluntarily. <BR /> <BR />We can talk about cuts being imposed by the Tory Government.”
“He says that we cannot afford £200 million — if we take his figure; £250 million if we take NICVA's figure; or £120 million if we take the DSD figure — to protect the sick, the poor and the most vulnerable in society. I made it clear then and will do so again that where my party's priorities lie is in protecting the most vulnerable and ensuring that the first duty of Government is to make sure that people are not driven into poverty, destitution, further hardship or to food banks, which we have seen an increasing need for under the Tory Government. <BR /> <BR />We hear boasts about the levels of foreign direct investment etc that have been brought into Northern Ireland under this Executive. As a member of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I hear it time and time again.”
“The same people who say that we cannot afford the so-called penalties, which, as I pointed out consistently, are not penalties but money going into the pockets of the poorest and most vulnerable in society and those who are on the lowest incomes, are saying that we cannot afford those cuts from the block grant. Indeed, the Alliance Party leader, David Ford, when attacking my party in his conference speech, said that we cannot afford his guesstimate of the figure of £200 million of cuts to public services, but, in the same speech, he said that we must progress the corporation tax cut, which would see a £300 million tax relief for big businesses.”