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 21 of 28.
“That is the bedroom tax. That is exactly what the bedroom tax is. I accept that it is a phased introduction, in that it would apply only where suitable alternative accommodation exists, but where that accommodation exists or where there is a change in personal circumstances, the bedroom tax would, as outlined by the Minister, be implemented. On social media and in other places, I was accused of all sorts of things, including being misleading. I am merely going on the words of the Minister. If those words are wrong and he wishes to retract them today, I will welcome that. He is shaking his head, so I assume that he will not do that.”
“Undoubtedly, uncertainty has been created. We have been given commitments time and again that the bedroom tax will not be implemented in Northern Ireland. The Minister said that he was not introducing the bedroom tax by the back door, but my reading of his words in the same debate is that he is introducing it by the front door. He very explicitly stated, and I quote from Hansard:”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 11 and 21 relate to the bedroom tax, and they are key amendments. We will learn a lot today in how parties respond to those amendments. They propose that, even when alternative accommodation exists, nobody should be subject to what has become known as the bedroom tax.”
“I do not believe that the same government — Mr Storey can answer whether or not it is his agenda — that seeks to reduce the welfare bill gives advice to those who are seeking to access welfare payments. Those roles need to be separated. In GB, we have seen the pressures to reduce welfare spend through some pretty odious means, including setting targets for sanctions. I know that the Minister says that that will not happen here. I believe his sincerity in saying that, but we have to be on our guard that what has happened in GB does not translate to Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />For those reasons, I, along with the SDLP, propose amendment No 17 and favour it to the Minister's amendment No 23. It is important not only to have a statutory duty to provide free advice but to extend that statutory duty to independent free advice.”
“I think that there are separate roles for the independent advice sector and the statutory advice given in social security offices, but it is about recognising that role, putting it on a statutory footing and giving the security that, as we go forward, despite the pressure on resources, we will continue to have an independent advice sector that is adequately resourced to meet the demands that will inevitably rise as a result of the changes proposed in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Another reason why I believe that it needs to be independent advice — the Minister has addressed and faced this issue many times — is to do with what has come from the UK Government, which is an agenda to cut the welfare bill.”
“If I was unclear, I apologise, and I will try to be clearer. I referred to the lack of resources in our social security offices. At no time, I believe, subject to referring to Hansard, did I suggest that I was unhappy with the advice being given by the independent advice sector. It is about protecting and giving security to that sector at a time when resources are being stretched so that its place is protected. We recognise the need for those services. I am not criticising staff in social security offices.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst I recognise that the Minister has his own amendment to place a statutory duty to provide free advice, and I will certainly listen to his explanation of how that will work in practice, I think that it is important that it is independent advice for a number of reasons. First, if it is simply the advice that is already given by our social security offices, every MLA in the House will know how inadequate that provision would be were it not for the support of the likes of Citizens Advice, Advice NI and other organisations. <BR />Staff in social security offices do not have the time to sit down with individual claimants to support them through their claims and to see that process through — for example, if they have to go for appeals etc. I see that the Minister is shaking his head.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 17, which has been tabled jointly by the Green Party and the SDLP, is in relation to the independent advice duty; a duty on the Department to ensure that independent advice is freely available to those seeking to access benefits. In the previous stage, we heard about the issues facing the east Belfast advice centre, and there are advice centres across Northern Ireland that are facing increased demands, in part due to concerns and uncertainty around welfare reform. There is no doubt that, if and when this legislation passes, they will see a surge in demand for their services. However, it appears unlikely that they will see an increase in the support that they receive from government to meet that demand, which is a result of changes made by this Government.”
“I think that the amendment passed in the previous stage to allow for a pilot scheme should allow the Department the ability to test the systems on a smaller scale and to ensure that we do not have the mess that was experienced in GB, with many vulnerable people and many people with disabilities having to wait an extraordinarily long time to have their claim assessed and their decision made and to receive their payments. It is not acceptable that we expect people with disabilities to suffer to fit a change in the system. The change in the system must work for the people with disabilities and must meet their needs, not, as I say, the other way around.”
“Sixteen weeks to wait on a decision on a claim for people with serious disabilities and who need support is still too long, and I think that it should be a minimum commitment that we give that 16 weeks is the longest that any claimant should have to wait from their lodging of a claim until they receive a decision. That, to my mind, allows the Department the time to introduce the system and to iron out the cracks. <BR /> <BR />I hope that, going forward, no one will be waiting for 16 weeks, but it does allow the flexibility in the interim period and the transition period for the Department to get the processes in place and to deal with any backlog.”
“Amendment No 15 is a proposal to set a time limit by which PIP assessments are made and claims honoured. We have seen the shambles — I think that that is the right word to use — of the situation in England, where, after 16 months of personal independence payment (PIP) implementation, only 40% of cases had been cleared, with many claimants waiting as long as six months. Indeed, in some cases, claimants were waiting longer than that for a decision to be made on their claim. The Government in the UK have now given a commitment that they will get the time delay down to 16 weeks, and my amendment proposes that we should set a limit of 16 weeks for such decisions to be made in Northern Ireland. Let me be clear: that is still too long.”
“<BR /> <BR />I propose, as I did at Consideration Stage, that we change the legislation and give a commitment to those families that they will not be worse off and, therefore, we should amend the legislation accordingly to make sure of that. At the very least, I seek assurance and commitment from the Minister and other parties on the Executive that, should the Bill not be amended, those families will be compensated through the discretionary payments, and that they will benefit from the commitment made by those who said that no family will be worse off as a result of welfare reform in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />We need to separate out from this the issue of discretionary payments which, no doubt, will be used by some to suggest that this situation could be mitigated. What I seek from the Minister and from other parties is clarity on whether they support this cut to the lower-rate disability addition in principle, or are they supporting it in this Bill with the promise of discretionary payment being made to those families to meet the condition that some have said to date, that no one will be worse off under this Bill? There is no doubt that, as the Bill is drafted — without any discretionary payments — in the region of 3,000 families will be worse off as a result of this change.”
“It is estimated that that will affect 100,000 families across the UK, and, on a proportional basis, that figure equates to approximately 3,000 families in Northern Ireland, although, with our higher level of disability claims, there is the potential that that figure could be greater than 3,000. <BR /> <BR />At Consideration Stage, the Minister stated that the reduction in the lower-rate payment would enable those with more severe disabilities to receive a greater payment. For me, that does not stack up as an argument, when those on the greater payment would receive £2 per week more — which I am sure they will welcome — but I do not see how that is a justification for families to receive a reduction in payment of £26 per week, which will have a significant impact on the family income.”
“It means that we can debate the amendments on their merits and those who oppose amendments will do so for their own reasons but without the cover of a petition of concern, which, I think, at Consideration Stage, put the emphasis on the DUP, who tabled those petitions, and, to some extent, provided cover for other Members who rejected amendments that, in my view, were sound and in the best interests of many vulnerable members of our society. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 is about a disability addition payment. As the Bill is currently drafted, many families with disabled children will see a loss of approximately £26 a week to the universal credit that they receive under the current tax credit system.”
“At the outset of the Further Consideration Stage of the Welfare Reform Bill, I welcome the opportunity that we have to seek again amendments to the Bill to mitigate its worst effects on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I welcome the fact that, as I understand it, no petitions of concern have as yet been lodged against any of the amendments tabled, and I hope that that remains the case.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I assure him that, when my interest takes me outside north Down, I try to use public transport where possible, as I am sure that he knows. <BR /> <BR />I want to ask about the possible cost-effective solution. Will that require the Minister to engage with Europe to ensure that any such solution does not result in EU infraction proceedings?”
“The acceleration in the use of the car has been so much that our infrastructure has been unable to cope. <BR /> <BR />However, this is a sensible measure that could tackle a very serious issue, which has been pointed out. It deals with deaths on our roads and on our residential streets, and the safety of our children. For that reason, I believe that 20 is plenty. I support the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />The issue of cost is inevitable. Mr Lyttle, through extrapolation from the Portsmouth model, suggested a figure of £6 million. Whilst there is no doubt that this is a significant sum, if we look at the many hundreds of millions of pounds we are spending, or are proposing to spend, on new roads to make traffic go faster, I think that £6 million is a modest sum to slow traffic down in residential areas with the intent of saving lives and reducing the number of accidents. <BR /> <BR />The evidence shows that these measures can make our residential areas better places to live. They will not address all the problems, including those that I raised, such as cars parked along our footpaths etc. There is no doubt that we need to look at our infrastructure.”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not think it is a valid criticism to say that, because we are having discussions about our options, people will be unclear and that it will not be effective because people will not know what they are getting — the Bill will be clear when it is finished. It is not clear at Second Stage because the Bill has to go through Committee Stage and amendments. If those who make that criticism are suggesting we change the legislative process, that is fine. However, it is perfectly reasonable that we still have questions at Second Stage. The principles are there, the evidence is there to back those principles, and I think that we should go forward on that basis. We should get the Bill right, rather than saying that it must be absolutely complete and clear at Second Stage. That is a weak argument and does a disservice to the Bill.”
“If we look at where there are more children, and I think there is merit in that approach, would there be resource issues in trying to identify those areas? The opt-out approach, as I interpret the Bill as currently written, is more favourable. <BR /> <BR />I would like to hear the evidence, from the Minister and/or the proposer, for 20 mph limits versus the more physical measures. It is clear from the evidence I have looked at that, where you have both, you have better outcomes. Where there is greater resistance to road humps and other physical measures, could a 20 mph speed limit be a suitable alternative, or are we saying that we need both? This is something that can be teased out during Committee Stage.”
“From a pragmatic point of view, if we agree that this is the direction of travel — pardon the pun — this would be a more effective way to do it across Northern Ireland. I also believe it would be a better way to do things in terms of resources. Once 20 mph speed limits are in place, if the evidence — as it has elsewhere — shows that they are effective, demand will increase, and the Department will find itself responding to many requests, including those from Members of the Assembly representing their constituents. <BR /> <BR />In terms of a targeted approach, I worry about how we would do the targeting. Would we be targeting accident hotspots? In that case, I come back to Mr McKay's point of waiting until an accident happens and then taking action.”
“Whilst there is evidence that the more physical measures, the road humps etc, are very effective, there might be people who would be willing to accept a 20 mph speed limit but not the road humps. We have to have a more progressive approach in implementing 20 mph speed limits. I hope that, when the Bill comes out the other side of the Committee process, the very least it will do is make it easier to get 20 mph speed limits where, certainly, the will is there to do so. At this point, I favour an opt-out system rather than an opt-in system. <BR /> <BR />One of the reasons for this is that, if we have a demand-led approach, that could be more costly in having to assess each application or proposal individually, as opposed to what I believe would be a less onerous opt-out system.”
“It may have done, but, when I last raised the issue with the Department, that was the response that I was given.”
“I know the practicalities of getting a Bill through. You have to listen to the will of the House and, of course, to the amendments that may come forward from the Committee. <BR /> <BR />There seems to be sense in the opt-out approach. We have the evidence that 20 mph speed limits work in reducing accidents and deaths, so the principle of implementing them would be sensible. To allow for unintended consequences, however, there should be avenues for opting out. <BR /> <BR />As things stand, it appears to be very difficult to get 20 mph speed limits in place. Although there are pilot schemes, I was told when I approached the Department that, if road humps are not already in place, 20 mph speed limits are not an option. I am not aware of that policy having changed.”
“<BR /> <BR />As a result of development, we have seen the loss of play spaces. I can think of plenty of examples in my constituency. There are whole housing developments in which there is no green space, with cars parked on both sides of the road — in older developments, certainly — on footpaths and in cycle lanes. Many residential areas are not safe for cycling, and they are certainly not safe for play. We need a better balance between the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles, and we should always bear in mind the needs of children. <BR /> <BR />As I said, we have the option of opting out or opting in. There is also the targeted approach that Mr Lyttle referred to. I will look in greater detail at the evidence, but, from what I have read to date and based on where my instincts lie, I am for the Bill as it stands.”
“It is clear that the Bill's intention is to reduce deaths and accidents. On that basis, we should welcome it. I welcome the fact that the clear will of the Assembly today is to take action to achieve those aims. It is one thing to will it but another to do it. The options, as they have come across in the debate, are an opt-in policy or an opt-out policy and whether we go with limits only or fully integrated 20 mph zones. <BR /> <BR />We have to start with the onus being on protecting life, and particularly on protecting children. The Bill will not do everything to stop deaths on our roads. People have mentioned other ways in which we should perhaps be tackling the issues, but that is not to take away from the Bill in any way. Just because it will not do everything does not mean that it does not have merit for doing something.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Maybe he is getting to this, but he has made the sweeping statement that this Bill will not work and will not do what it seeks to achieve. Various pieces of evidence have been presented to the contrary to show that, where 20 mph speed limits have been introduced, they have reduced accidents and reduced deaths. Indeed, evidence has shown that hitting someone at 20 mph is significantly less likely to kill them than hitting them at 30 mph. Is he going to get to the point where he introduces the evidence that this Bill will not work, now that he has stated it so absolutely and so clearly?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer and clarification of the issue. He will be aware of the statement made by Dr Alasdair McDonnell on the 'Inside Politics' programme that fatal foetal abnormality was difficult to predict. He may have given couples and women who have received that diagnosis false hope that the diagnosis may be inaccurate. Will he make it clear that Dr Alasdair McDonnell was wrong in what he stated and that politicians should not be so irresponsible when trying to protect their party position?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the advances in cancer treatment. As the Minister knows, many of us have been affected by cancer, directly or indirectly. Less than four years ago, I lost a very close friend to it. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has acknowledged that there will be those who would have been exempt from paying under the old scheme who will now have to pay under this proposal and those of us, like me and him, who can afford to pay more than what is being proposed. Has any consideration been given to a voluntary payment scheme, which would not have the administrative burden of means-testing but would allow those in need to get their prescriptions free of charge?”
“Note has been made of the number of amendments that we have brought forward, and I should pay due regard to a member of my staff who has worked tirelessly on the Bill and also, as always, to the assistance of the Bill Office for helping us to bring forward legislatively competent amendments. I stand over our policy ideas, but we are not legal drafters, and its support and guidance on the amendments has been invaluable. <BR /> <BR />It is the closing of a long debate. I think that it has been largely temperate. We have disagreed, of course, but that is the essence of democracy — disagreement, but disagreement with respect — and I think that that has largely been carried through in the debate.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. The alternative side of that coin is that we give the Department the power to make the regulations and then, at the time of its choosing, we debate them. It is a bit cart before horse for me in terms of some of the provisions, although not the whole Bill. There are different levels of secondary legislation — subordinate legislation — for a reason. I think that, for some aspects of the Bill, confirmatory is appropriate, but I think that there are aspects of the Bill that are too important to be decided in advance of the Assembly seeing the draft. <BR /> <BR />It would be remiss of me not to pay credit, as others have done, to a few people, most notably my legislative team, such as Ross Brown is.”
“<BR /> <BR />I understand the point that Mr Beggs made, in that, should specific aspects of the Bill come back to the Assembly, there is the possibility of further disagreement. Equally, I do not think that we should live under threat of being unable to debate it for fear that the Assembly would collapse. We have shown the five-party group —”
“To be clear, it is not my intention to move amendment No 21. It was very much a probing amendment that was designed to make the point that the Assembly should have maximum oversight. <BR /> <BR />When I introduced the group, I acknowledged that is was a blunt amendment. I had hoped, although I did not hear it from the Minister, that it may be a spur for him to come back, perhaps, with some amendments on specific aspects where the draft affirmative measure could, instead, apply. Mr Beggs referred to the oversight of the Committee. Some support has been given to the role of the Committee, but it is very much the role of the Chamber that I wish to highlight. I may come back at Further Consideration Stage with more specific amendments as to where I believe the Assembly should have maximum oversight on any proposed regulations.”
“<BR /> <BR />As drafted, however, the Bill leaves too much responsibility to the Department and insufficient oversight by the Assembly. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind and to look at it in more detail. Indeed, I ask Members to insist today that the Assembly have full scrutiny of regulations under what is undoubtedly one of the most important pieces of legislation in the Assembly, certainly in my time, given the direct impact that it will have on the lives and well-being of many of our constituents. I will wait to hear the Minister's rationale for the technical amendments, but, at this point, I do not have concerns about their content.”
“<BR /> <BR />Section 9 will decide through regulations the amount of universal credit to be awarded; the level at which universal credit is set will therefore be decided after we debate the Bill and it has received Royal Assent. The amount of children's disability additions will go through under regulations, as will the amount to be awarded under the new employment support allowance components of universal credit. I could go on at length, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, but this stage has already gone on at length; therefore I do not intend to cite every regulation that causes me concern. My proposal is that draft regulations should be brought before the Assembly before being implemented. I think that that is good practice. I accept that my proposal would include all regulations, and perhaps some do not need that level of oversight.”
“However, proposing an amendment to every regulation for which I believed a draft affirmative resolution was required would have meant many more amendments today. I am therefore putting forward a principle that the Assembly should have maximum oversight of the regulations. We cannot simply pass a Bill that, in much of what it will do, enables the Department to put in place regulations with little Assembly scrutiny. Those of us who sit on Committees know how quickly, and with how little scrutiny, negative resolutions, like the many under this Bill, and, indeed, affirmative resolutions, are passed. If you look at some of the enablements in the Bill and some of the areas that it covers, you will understand why I have such concern and, particularly, why I have concern that increased Assembly oversight is subject to a petition of concern.”
“Of all the groups of amendments, certainly of my own, I find it strangest but also, perhaps, most telling that this should be subject to a petition of concern. My proposed amendments simply seek to give the Assembly greater oversight of the regulations that will come forward after the Bill. The Minister has made much of the fact that today is not the end of the journey for the Bill, but neither is Final Stage or even Royal Assent. Much of the Bill is an enabling power for the Department to put in place regulations on welfare. <BR /> <BR />I accept that I have chosen a somewhat crude approach by seeking to amend the Bill so that a draft affirmative resolution is required for any regulations.”
“I am sure the SDLP will come to this in its winding up: its proposal for a welfare reform Committee was suggested yesterday when the DUP leader spoke. This was something that was already agreed to. Perhaps the Minister can give more clarity. If this is something that is to happen through another mechanism, it will be up to the members of the SDLP whether they move their amendment. It would provide clarity for those of us who are seeking to vote if they would do so. Similarly, if and how would that relate to amendment No 56? <BR /> <BR />I do not wish to delay the House unnecessarily, Principal Deputy Speaker, so I will leave my remarks there.”
“Again, we have seen the difficulties in implementing welfare reform in GB. Taking a step back from the principles, the mere implementation, regardless of where you stand, has clearly caused problems, and I think a pilot scheme is a sensible way to proceed.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am not proposing that we change the welfare legislation on an annual basis, and that is the rationale for the three-year timeline initially, and then the five-year timeline for my review. Again, a petition of concern has been tabled, so presumably the intention is for this not to pass. The Minister has proposed his own reporting mechanism. Should that pass, I may come back at Further Consideration Stage with a bit more detail on what should be required in that report because it is important that we keep an assessment of the impact on vulnerable groups, as laid out in my amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 34 on the pilot scheme is a sensible proposal.”
“While my proposal is not that any report or review should be exclusive to those groups, I think that it is reasonable to require that any review specifically addresses the impact of the changes on those groups. <BR /> <BR />Going back to some of what was said to the effect that no one will be worse off under this Bill etc, we need the data and measurements to show that. My proposal goes further in that it would require in any review proposals on where improvements could be made to the Bill. That is very much the rationale behind the three-year and five-year timeline. It is not just a report on welfare reform, but seeking to propose changes.”
“I will speak on my own amendment and make brief comment on the others. It seems that I have been the least prescriptive in terms of a timeline for the various proposed reviews and reporting. Part of the rationale for that is what I sought to require in the reporting. I picked out three groups the impact on which any review and reporting should assess, specifically the number of people with a disability living in poverty, the number of children living in poverty, and the financial impact on women claimants. <BR /> <BR />Throughout GB and, indeed, here in Northern Ireland, there has been much commentary on the impact of welfare reform. Consistently, those are three groups deemed to be most vulnerable to the changes.”
“The Committee originally proposed to do that, but it seems that that position has changed. I will be maintaining the position, because the new benefits regime being proposed is draconian. It is based on saving money, not on doing what is claimed, which is motivating — if I can use that term — people back into work.”
“I go back to the intention of the Tory Government and, even with the Minister's amendment, what we are proposing to replicate here. They made it clear from the outset that their intention was to cut the welfare bill by £18 billion. The Minister was asked for evidence. Why this level of sanctions? Where is the evidence that this level of sanctions is the right one? I have no doubt that the evidence would show that this level of sanctions will save money through not paying out benefits, but I have not seen the evidence that it will mean more people getting into work. That is where my concern lies. <BR /> <BR />I have proposed an amendment for a 26-week sanction, which, of course, has been subject to a petition of concern. I will be opposing clause 26 altogether.”
“Absolutely. But, equally, those assurances were given in GB. A whistle-blower who was quoted in a 'Guardian' article certainly suggested that incentives for staff were being put in place. This is a direct quote from somebody working as a Jobcentre Plus adviser:”
“He has given assurances that that is not the case in Northern Ireland, but, as I said to him at the time —”
“Yes, if persistent failure is shown, higher-level sanctions can be applied, but clause 115 means that we jump immediately to three months for people who could be a minute late to an appointment, and another person could then be in in front of them. People would then have to challenge that decision, and they may or may not be successful in that. That is jumping too far. It is about intent. <BR /> <BR />What was the intention of the legislation in Westminster and what is the intention of the legislation here today? Members who spoke previously talked about some of the evidence from across the water. There was recently a programme on Radio 4, and, on the back of it, I questioned the Minister around targets and incentives for applying sanctions.”
“Again, I thank the Minister for his intervention, because he brings me to another point that I think I am right in picking up from my reading of the proposals. The higher-level sanctions are imposed under what is essentially a three-strikes rule. The first act under this new sanctions regime, however, is to suspend someone's benefits for three months. Again, like others, I will wait on the feedback on my opposition to clause 115. My intention was to retain a system in which the first strike should be a caution. In my experience, in the vast majority of cases of people missing appointments or failing to attend interviews, and so on, it happens for genuine reasons, so give people the benefit of the doubt on their first instance.”
“It is my experience that sanctions are applied all too quickly and easily. When a claimant goes to an appointment, and the agency is behind schedule for whatever reason — it can happen — they are required to wait for 30 minutes, for example. If a claimant turns up five minutes late because of their childcare arrangements — there are many circumstances — their benefits can be stopped. You can then appeal and give your reasons for that, but the sanctions are applied too readily and, even under the Minister's proposals, improvement though they are on the Tories' proposals, all too harshly.”