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 19 of 28.
“<BR /> <BR />Last week, when it was clear that this Bill was coming before the House again, the Green Party laid out key areas where we still wanted to see improvements. If we were to have this deadline today — others have debated whether it was a necessary or unnecessary deadline — and accepting that this Bill was coming forward again, we made clear where we needed to see movement: on increased funds for mitigation measures; no bedroom tax; protection of child disability payments and additions; and sanctions. <BR /> <BR />On increased funds, we have heard some who say that this is not realistic, possible or affordable. We have to bear in mind that the same parties have signed up to corporation tax reduction, which would see £300 million a year come out of the block grant.”
“We have seen who, it is proposed, will be protected, but we have not been given the detail of who is to be worse off. How can we judge today whether that is an acceptable consequence if we do not have that detail? <BR /> <BR />The Green Party has sought to be constructive throughout this process. At Consideration Stage, we brought forward more amendments than any other party. We made clear the areas of the Bill that we would like to see improved. None of those amendments were passed. Indeed, they were blocked by the DUP and voted against by Sinn Féin, which, as it has been pointed out, at that point, was putting forward welfare reform and saying that the deal that had been reached at Stormont House should receive the Assembly's support.”
“I often quote the two figures of £120 million and £250 million because I cannot say which is accurate, but I have yet to see from the Department, the Minister or an official source of the Northern Ireland Executive the breakdown of their £120 million calculation. I have certainly not seen any evidence that £90 million per year would be sufficient to mitigate the cuts that are being made. If we accept that, if we went forward on the current proposals, there would be a shortfall in the mitigation — I can see no other conclusion that can be drawn — we have not seen the detail of who will be worse off.”
“However, I cannot even have confidence in those, in that, whilst I appreciate the detail that has been given about the who, what has not been made public is how much each of those categories will receive. <BR /> <BR />I know that the Minister's predecessor was very dismissive of the NICVA report, which was produced on their behalf by the University of Sheffield. It laid out the figures and laid out by how much each benefit would be cut and the direct impact on Northern Ireland. It did not just give the blanket £250 million; it gave its component parts. We have yet to see a refutation of those figures.”
“I first made the point when Sinn Féin claimed that, under the deal agreed at Stormont House, no one would be worse off. I made the point that that could not be the case, because, whatever figure we used, whether it was NICVA's figure of £250 million or the previous Social Development Minister's figure of £120 million, that was the scale of the cuts, and the mitigation was £90 million. Those sums can never be made to work. Nothing has changed in the mitigation measures since March, when the Final Stage of the Bill was first to come to the Assembly, which is why the Green Party is still opposed to the Bill and the proposals put forward around it. We have had some information from the Social Development Minister on who will not be worse off under the proposed mitigation measures that have been agreed.”
“It is my first opportunity to wish Mr Peter Robinson well and hope for his full recovery. It is important at times like this that we separate the politics from the person. I have seen unkind comments about Mr Robinson on social media, and I say to those making them — some of whom, I know, are supporters of my party — that the time to knock a politician is when they are on their feet making political speeches and debates and standing as a politician. Mr Robinson is no different from any of us: he is vulnerable to illness, and, at this difficult time, we recognise the man as a person and pass sympathy to him and his family. <BR /> <BR />My persistent stance throughout the welfare reform debate has been that the figures do not add up.”
“Does the Member agree with me that the DUP is still bringing in the bedroom tax?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I know that he suggested that he may have missed some of the Minister's explanation. However, further to that, the Minister said today:”
“As much as I enjoy challenging a cosy consensus, I have to welcome the Minister's statement and, indeed, his direction of travel. I recently attended a very good NIACRO event at which Karyn McCluskey from the Violence Reduction Unit of Scotland spoke. She made a point along the lines of this: a child in school is a child out of prison. What work is the Minister doing, or will he do, with his counterpart the Minister of Education to look at the Glasgow model, where they have effectively stopped school exclusions?”
“I thank the Member for giving way and for his comments on my contribution. The point that I make is that we can raise taxes only if they are progressive; that is, if they fall heaviest on those who can afford them, not on the most vulnerable. Otherwise — the Member is right — they would be counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve.”
“<BR /> <BR />As has been pointed out, the community and voluntary sector is not looking for special dispensation, but what has been clear, and what has been echoed throughout this debate, is that there has not been an evaluation-based approach. We have not cut the services that were performing least well; we have cut the services that were easier to cut. We have to produce a new Budget. We have had emergency Budget after emergency Budget through the funding rounds and the one-year Budget. We need a long-term Budget that sets out a strategic vision, and, where cuts have to be made when they are not self-imposed, they should be based on evaluation and not on top-slicing.”
“My argument is that further cuts will have to be made if we reduce corporation tax to the level that is proposed and that the community and voluntary sector will be most at risk. The decision to freeze rates, the decision to cut air passenger duty and the decision not to introduce water charges are all political decisions that have consequences. We had a 100% cut to our Budget. We did not seek in any way to raise revenue with the powers that we have. I agree that austerity is the number one cause of the problems we are facing, but the reality is that the Northern Ireland Government have chosen to add further austerity through these tax freezes, tax breaks and funding cuts.”
“Here is why the loss of your services is acceptable so that we can implement a massive tax break for big business. Here is why, despite the fact that we trumpet being the most successful region of the UK in bringing in foreign direct investment, our income gap with the rest of the UK is increasing and we are in a worse position than other UK regions." <BR /> <BR />I will give way to Mr Wilson.”
“When you do that, you are saying that you are happy to accept cuts that will impact on the community and voluntary services that the most vulnerable in our community rely on. <BR /> <BR />The most stark example is the consensus across the five parties of the Northern Ireland Government on the implementation of further cuts through the reduction in corporation tax. Everyone who supports that policy and says that it will be good for our economy should go to each of the community and voluntary sector bodies that will, again, be the most vulnerable to those cuts because, as has been pointed out, they are seen as the easy target. They should go to those sectors and say, "Here is why £300 million-plus of extra cuts per year is a good idea.”
“The community sector is good and the cuts to it are bad." The reality is that the cuts are the result of political choices that are being made by the governing parties in Northern Ireland. Yes, we have to face the reality of Tory cuts, but there is also the reality of the self-implemented cuts that are being made by the Northern Ireland Government. <BR /> <BR />We often hear parties here boasting that they have kept rates down and that this is a low-tax economy. When you make that boast, you have to recognise that you also boast that you are happy to starve services of resources, to implement cuts, and to give tax breaks, often to those who can afford to pay more and to the wealthiest in our society.”
“Having worked in the community and voluntary sector, specifically on homelessness, I am keenly aware of the services that are provided and the efficiency of those services. When you bring in the help of volunteers, you can stretch resources that bit further. Undoubtedly, the cuts are counter-strategic. Many Members who have spoken made the point about early years provision, and I echo that. <BR /> <BR />I am glad that a bit of tension was created in the debate. I do not agree with some of the comments that Sammy Wilson made, but I certainly agree that there is a political debate to be had. This debate ran the risk of turning into, "Good things are good and bad things are bad.”
“— but there is just one problem with it: there are cars parked the full length of it. <BR /> <BR />We need to ensure that we put the investment into public transport and into cycling and that we do so in a strategic way to ensure that the provisions that we create are not tokenistic but strategic.”
“It is a wide road, and there is definitely the space for it. Prior to that, I had noted that Massey Avenue was being resurfaced. It is a very wide road, which confuses people as to whether it is one lane or two. There is plenty of space for cycling provision, but, again, the focus was not given to it. Furthermore, an example of where we have, to some extent, failed with existing cycle lanes is on the Newtownards Road in Bangor, which is in my constituency. There is a perfectly good cycle lane —”
“To date, the numbers have been going in the opposite direction, and the percentage spend on public transport has been decreasing. So, I welcome the Minister's answer to that question, and I hope he meets his commitment to a 35% spend on public transport. <BR /> <BR />To come to the other side, I believe that there has been a failure. In another question for written answer, I asked the Minister about the recent resurfacing works in Ballymiscaw, and, in the same answer that he told me that there was no consultation with his cycle unit about cycling provision on the road, he told me that his Department would seek to seize opportunities as they arose. With the continuous road works that we are doing around the country, we should always consider cycling and consider the opportunities.”
“We thought that we could cycle to the train station, get the train, get off at the nearest stop and cycle to Stormont, which might be safer and easier. Then, of course, we faced another hurdle, which was the fact that we might not get on the train with our bikes during the morning rush hour, when cyclists are not always permitted on trains with their bikes. The barriers are there to making that modal shift and that transition to cycling being one of the choices. <BR /> <BR />To change that, we need investment. I recently asked the Minister to outline the ratio of spend of public to private transport. I was delighted to see the projection of 35% spend on public transport in next year's budget. I know that this is about cycling, but the two very much need to link together, as my experience shows.”
“As the Committee Chair rightly said at the start of the debate, cycling should be a normal form of transport. It should be an option along with taking the car, using public transport or walking. It should be one of our choices for how we get to and from work and go about our daily needs. <BR /> <BR />I will speak of my own experience of public transport from Bangor. Despite the numerous civil servants etc who travel from Bangor to the Stormont estate and although it is easy to get to Stormont, if you work past 5.15 pm, you cannot return home by public transport. When I worked as a researcher for an MLA, I discussed the possibility of biking it here with another worker in the Building. We decided that the Craigantlet hills were a bit dangerous — and a bit hilly, I have to say. They were a bit of a challenge.”
“I welcome the debate and the focus that the Regional Development Committee has brought to cycling. It is a perfect example of an issue that, if we invest in it, can bring benefits to the economy, people and our environment. <BR /> <BR />It is worth saying at the outset that I think we should separate two things that, whilst they are connected, are different: cycle tourism and leisure cycling and, I suppose, cycling as a mode of transport. The needs of the two types of cyclist, whilst connected, will in many cases be different, and the provisions that are required may be different. If we are going to achieve the modal shift in what we use as our daily or commuting transport, it is important to bear that in mind to ensure that the two are not confused and we end up doing neither one nor the other.”
“They want to give her the burial that she deserves. I call on those with information to let their consciences rest, let the family have peace and bring forward this information to help this family to move on.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is 10 years on, and I am fortunate to have children of my own. That is a future that was denied to Lisa. I can only imagine, as a parent, how Lisa's family must feel — her parents, John and Patricia, and, indeed, her sisters, Joanne, Michelle and Ciara. I can only speculate how that tragedy has impacted on their lives. I extend my sympathy to them, as my North Down colleagues have done today. <BR /> <BR />All I can do is echo the appeals that have been made. There are people out there who know what happened. Whether for right or for reward, they should bring forward that information. If needs be to protect them from any fear of persecution, they can do that confidentially through Crimestoppers. <BR /> <BR />As has been stated on a number of occasions in this debate, the family want to find Lisa's body.”
“As I rise to speak, I have a picture of Lisa Dorrian in front of me, along with images of her family during the recent appeal. Lisa was my age, and it is hard not to put yourself back 10 years. Where was I? I, like Lisa, was partying. I was without responsibility — I did not have children at that time — and no doubt I was irresponsible at times. I suppose, in my own context, I was largely safe and had the advantage of being male. That is unfortunately still an advantage in this society. Violence against women is still all too prevalent. It is very much still a scourge and an issue that we have to deal with, whether it is domestic violence within the privacy of a family home or this violent act that we understand has been committed and that we have yet to fully discover the truth of.”
“As I say, the school that I have most experience with has been very positive. I want to put that on record. There is good practice, and it can be built upon. <BR /> <BR />As I say, I believe that the issue with this Bill is not what is in it but very much what is not in it and indeed the fact that it comes from one Minister. Ultimately, this is a Bill that had to be agreed at Executive level and should be cross-departmental in its scope and provisions because, if we are going to properly address the problems with special educational need provision in the system — and there is good practice, but more needs to be done — the only way in which we can do that is through cooperation across Departments and cross-departmental legislation.”
“A child with special educational needs is not being taken aside and given special provision — if that is necessary, that is fine — but some of that which would have been deemed to be special provision is actually being generalised; for example, the use of visual cues rather than solely verbal cues. It has actually been found to be of benefit to all children. That is a model of good practice. I do not have sufficient experience to say how widespread that practice is, but I certainly think that we need to take those positive examples of good practice and learning between schools and indeed, as I say, across board areas until we move to the single Education Authority, because it is clear that provision is mixed and that children's experiences differ from school to school and board to board.”
“Some of the interventions that are required potentially will be before a child will come into contact with the formal education system, whether at nursery or primary school. Again, that early identification and support is very necessary to ensure the best outcomes for these children. <BR /> <BR />I have to say that my experience is that, currently, provision is mixed across schools and across boards. I have said on occasions that it is about making good practice common practice. I have to give credit to my son's school, Bangor Central Integrated Primary School, where I have seen some very good practice. I am not saying that it is perfect, but some of the interventions that have been shown to work with children with special educational needs are actually being rolled out across the school.”
“The evidence is that those interventions, rather than the statement or a decision not to impose a statement, make the difference for a child. However, as a lot of the legislation stands, the statement becomes important for access to some services and resources for schools. I am not negating the importance of statements in the context of our system, but they should not be the be-all and end-all. When needs are identified, a child should receive the interventions as soon as is practicable. <BR /> <BR />A lot of this comes down to investment in the early years. We have the evidence that shows that this is where we can have the biggest impact with the most efficient use of resources. That will be particularly true, or certainly no less true, for children with special educational needs. Again, that is why we need a cross-departmental Bill.”
“It appears that things are improving, but there was a particular problem in the South Eastern Education and Library Board area, where I think that it is fair to say that the timelines were unacceptable. However, as I said, I welcome the improvements that have been made. <BR /> <BR />Maybe it is not a place for legislation, but it is worth putting on record that, when problems are identified, it is important that we do not wait for the assessment process to make interventions. I have seen good practice in schools, where, on the identification of a problem, support is put in place rather than waiting for the assessment process to complete its course. When a problem is recognised, the interventions are in place and the five-stage approach, as it stands, gives schools and teachers the powers to act quickly.”
“Again, that is why a SEN Bill that comes solely from the Education Department cannot and will not — arguably, it is not the policy intention — solve these problems. It is regrettable that we have a SEN Bill that does not address those issues. It is a missed and wasted opportunity if we do not propose to address the issues of transitions and of SEN post-19. <BR /> <BR />Clause 5 deals with the time that it takes for diagnosis, and anyone would welcome any reduction in the time frame. Constituents have come to me with their experiences, as has happened to many Members. Certainly, one case appeared in the press, on which I asked a number of questions.”
“We are sometimes multiplying those transitions because the Health Department will have one plan for the transition from child to adult services, and the Education Department will have another plan. That increases the challenges for a child, when surely our government structures should be mitigating the challenges that those children face. <BR /> <BR />An issue that has recently come to my attention, which ties into this, is the experience of blind and partially sighted children. I absolutely have to give credit to the Education Department because the evidence is that blind and partially sighted children do well in education. Their educational performance is on a par with their peers, yet, post secondary education, there is a significant dip in further and higher education and employment.”
“If we are to really improve timelines, we need the services to wrap around the child and the family, rather than them having to go to each assessment and each practitioner to get the various assessments while explaining the child's experiences each time, repeating themselves and duplicating effort. <BR /> <BR />This goes back to the need for joined-up working between the Departments and some of the issues that Robin Swann raised, but another great omission from the Bill is transitions. We have had the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People report on transitions for many years. It highlights the parallel approach for transitions planning of the Health Department and the Education Department. We all find transitions difficult, but children with autism will find them particularly difficult.”
“If it is clear that there is an omission from the Bill, it should have been resolved between Departments in cooperation at Executive level before the legislation was brought to the House. <BR /> <BR />I have seen examples of very good multidisciplinary work in the diagnosis of SEN. Again, it appears that that work happens within the Department of Health and that there is potentially less scope for it within the Department of Education or, at least, within schools. I am sure that there are counter-examples, but, in my experience, that joined-up working between the Department of Education and the Department of Health still seems to have some way to go. <BR /> <BR />In the research for my Bill, I came across a great quote in which one parent defined integrated services as not having to repeat yourself 30 times in 30 different contexts.”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of Members highlighted the issue with clause 4 and the duty on the Education Authority to request health and social care bodies' help in cases where possible special educational needs have been identified. However, there is no reciprocal duty. We are effectively being told that the Department cannot legislate for that, as one Minister cannot legislate for the other. I understand that. We need a cross-departmental Bill, and, if that is not possible, we need to look at our systems of governance. What appears to be the case and what many Members alluded to is that the Minister cannot do that, so the House will have to. In my view, that is not good governance.”
“I am delighted that the Chair of the Committee for Employment and Learning spoke because he highlighted one of the problems. Where is the post-18 and post-19 SEN provision in the Bill? Indeed, where in the Bill are the duties on the Department of Health? The problem with the Bill is not its content but that it is a Department of Education Bill when what we need is a cross-departmental Bill to properly deal with the issues that affect children with special educational needs and their families. If we are to get it right, we need those three Departments' input. Whilst I have no doubt that there has been consultation, it is apparent that there has not been cooperation and collaboration, because we are left with a single departmental Bill when SEN provisions stretch across at least three Departments and perhaps more.”
“As other Members said, this is a key issue and it is important that we get it right. There are too many examples, not so much of what is in the Bill — I do not think that I have any major objections to that — but of what is not.”
“The Minister and I have engaged on my private Member's Bill, which calls for a statutory duty to cooperate. I am conscious that, if I paraphrase the Minister and get him wrong, he will call me out on it, so I will try to be accurate in my description. I think that he is, at best, ambivalent about my Bill and the need for legislation. Perhaps I have not provided him with sufficient examples of why I believe that my Bill is needed. If he needs a further example, it is his Bill.”
“— to understand. Those providing the objections support unregulated quarrying and gold-mining, but, when it comes to wind turbines, they seem to have an objection to the local impacts.”
“<BR /> <BR />I certainly welcome further research into and monitoring of the noise impacts, but we need to take an evidence-based approach. The World Health Organization has said about imperceptible noise that there is no reliable evidence that sounds below the hearing threshold produce physiological or psychological effects. We should continue to monitor it, but we have to make decisions based on the evidence available. <BR /> <BR />I find some of the opposition to wind projects hard —”
“<BR /> <BR />Turning to the report, I think that I am right in saying that the Committee Chair expressed the support of the Committee for the proposal that wider economic, social and environmental impacts should not be taken into account when planning decisions are made on wind farms. I believe that this contradicts the Committee recommendation to take a strategic approach. Inevitably, these projects are regionally significant, and their wider impact must be taken into consideration, as for any major energy project. I do not believe that we would have Kilroot, Ballylumford or, going forward, the North/South interconnector if we looked solely at the local impact of an energy development. They are regionally significant, so we have to look more widely than the local impact.”
“It is easy to state that wind energy is expensive — it does have upfront costs — but the unit cost is zero, and the life cycle of wind energy generation is cheaper than for other forms of energy. Indeed, the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee has heard, on numerous occasions, that, when demand for electricity can be met by renewable energy generation alone, the marginal cost is significantly lower than when gas comes onto the system. The reality is that the price of wind is coming down, and, whilst gas prices have dipped, the overall trend is upward. When we consider the costs of 500 deaths a year related to air pollution and the impacts of climate change, it is clear that the cost of other sources of energy such as gas and coal is significantly greater.”
“Indeed, it was the first example in Northern Ireland of community ownership of energy, and I want people to avail themselves increasingly of such a model. <BR /> <BR />Despite claims from the Member opposite and from such sources as the 'Daily Mail' and the 'The Daily Telegraph', wind energy is the cheapest form not only of renewable energy but of all forms of energy production. That was borne out by the EU Commission study, which, having looked at all the costs, including subsidies and external costs such as to health and the environment, found that, to generate 1 MW of energy by onshore wind cost roughly €105, compared with €164 for gas and €233 for coal.”
“I welcome the debate and the Committee's focus on wind energy. As a supporter of wind energy, I want community buy-in for good wind projects based on good consultation. I also want the implementation of many of the measures that are called for in the report to promote community benefit, engagement and, when possible, ownership. <BR /> <BR />Like Alban Maginness, I was at the launch today of a solar energy cooperative, which will be run very much for community benefit. I welcome the work of the Ulster Community Investment Trust (UCIT) and the Northern Ireland Community Energy (NICE) board on that project. I also declare an interest as a shareholder in Northern Ireland's first wind energy cooperative, Drumlin Wind Energy.”
“How can the new Department of Education protect other children's services, particularly early years services for children before they start school, given the draw on resources by schools?”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister has given a commitment to Mr Attwood and the SDLP should their amendment not be passed. The Minister is well aware of my concerns and those of many others about the sanctions regime and how it will be implemented. It is important that we remain vigilant. The sanctions regime has the potential to drive people into severe destitution and reliance on food banks. Whilst I disagree with the system, it should be applied correctly and fairly; it should not be used as a way of cutting the welfare bill. I welcome the Minister's commitment on those issues and to ensuring the accuracy and standards of the sanctions regime. <BR /> <BR />That concludes my remarks on the group 2 amendments. I thank all those who contributed to the debate and gave consideration to my amendments and all the others that were debated today.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will speak very briefly on the amendments. I welcome the Minister's tabling of an amendment to report within three years of Royal Assent. I intend to move my amendment with the word "independent". We will agree to disagree on that, but I appreciate that he has sought to meet me halfway on the proposal that I tabled at Consideration Stage. That should be acknowledged. It is important that such significant legislation be reported on. An independent report would give the public more confidence. I suspect that outside agencies will produce reports on the Welfare Reform Act anyway, so it will be interesting to see how the Department takes forward the reporting process, subject to the outcome of the votes after the debate.”
“Given the late hour, I will try to be brief. I will conclude by thanking the Bill Office for their work on the amendments, both at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. As mentioned by Mr Attwood, the way in which we do legislation here means that there is a short period to work on such amendments. Certainly, there was not a single amendment that I could not bring forward due to lack of time, thanks to the hard work of the Bill Office. <BR /> <BR />It will be those outside the Chamber who will judge who, in the overall debate today, has been genuine and upfront about the changes being put through by the Assembly. The Stormont House Agreement was raised on numerous occasions. Parties will also be judged by those outside the Chamber on their role during and since the Stormont House negotiations.”
“To summarise briefly, my amendments are important, as they would bring further Assembly scrutiny of regulations and of the Bill, should it pass Final Stage, in the form of an independent report. This is a major piece of legislation, and it has taken a long time to get here. Many have concerns about it, and it is right that the greatest scrutiny possible be given to the implementation of the Bill itself, to the regulations that come from it, to how effective it is and to what its effect is.”
“I do not see any policy change there, although, again, we will wait to hear the Minister's rationale.”