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 24 of 28.
“<BR /> <BR />Let us look at another example: the review of the risk to young people in care of sexual exploitation is, I think, ongoing, but the first criticism made against the agencies involved was the lack of joined-up working. Children in care are, arguably, some of the most vulnerable children. Certainly, we have most responsibility for them, as they are in the care of the state's Departments. As someone in Scotland put it during lobbying for the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act, the state is their "corporate parent". We should be mindful of that. The conclusion drawn from investigations into the risk of sexual exploitation to children in care is that they are being failed and that a lack of cooperation is part of that failure.”
“I will go through the themes that came up in the debate rather than Member by Member, so I apologise if I do not cite those who raised some of the issues. <BR /> <BR />There was concern about the cost of enacting the Bill. Despite listening intently to the contributions from Members, I fail to understand how requiring Departments to work together will yield significant costs. However, I have seen, and presented to some degree, the cost of the lack of cooperation. Indeed, the Laming inquiry found that the lack of cooperation between Departments and agencies in England was an attributable factor in the death of a child. I would hate to see something as important as this derailed because of largely unfounded concerns about financial costs.”
“At the outset, I welcome the clear indication from the House today that there is cross-party consensus in support of the principles of the Children's Services Co-operation Bill. I outlined in my opening remarks the long journey to introduce the legislation. Perhaps the advantage of that was the opportunity for me and, indeed, the children's sector, to bring others with us by persuading them to support the Bill. Certainly, when first consulting on the Bill, I faced some resistance, and some took longer than others to come to the position of supporting it. Whilst there has been broad agreement on the principles of the Bill, concerns have been raised, and I would like to address them as well as I can.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I would point out that those reports are already required and that the reporting on cooperation would be an additional section. Under the Children's Order, reports are required every year. My Bill would change that to two-year reporting and three years for the production of a new plan. So, clause 4 would actually reduce the level of reporting.”
“I put to you the same question that I put to your colleague Brenda Hale. Can you outline where you see additional costs? I accept that there may be some transitional costs, but I see them as only marginal. Can you outline where you see costs in the provisions of the Bill?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The issue of cost has come up repeatedly and I have outlined the best evidence that I can find as to how cooperative working improves efficiency and decreases the costs of administration. I keep hearing, and being told, that this will cost a lot of money. Will the Member give me an example of how it will increase costs?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Again, to show that I have listened to the Committee, I have been in touch with the Health and Social Care Board, which has indicated that, at this point, it has no problems with the principles of the Bill; indeed, it highlighted that the Bill was in line with its own policies and direction of travel.”
“It would be remiss of me in moving a Bill promoting cooperation not to seek to cooperate with Members and Committees of this House and, indeed, Departments and agencies. <BR /> <BR />With one in four children living in poverty in Northern Ireland — a figure that is constantly on the rise — and resources limited and stretched, it is my belief that we cannot simply do what we have always done because it is how we have always done it. Something does need to change, and the Children's Services Co-operation Bill can be a catalyst for that change and achieve greater cooperation in the best interests of the children of Northern Ireland.”
“I have outlined the process by which I got here and the Bill got to this point. I understand that it is by no means finished. I look forward to working with the various Departments to shape the Bill, because I know there are concerns about certain aspects of the drafting, while there appears to be broad support for the principles of the Bill from statutory agencies. I am certainly willing to work with Departments, including OFMDFM, on drafting amendments that improve the Bill and enhance the intended principles. <BR /> <BR />I am also keen to listen to Members' views here today. I presented to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister on three occasions and had feedback; indeed, aspects of the Bill were changed as a result of that engagement.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. There have been great strides forward by the sector in cooperative working. Indeed, Children in Northern Ireland, the umbrella organisation for most of the sector, has been a great channel through which I have been able to engage. Certainly, I have found organisations in the sector speaking with one voice, cooperating and talking with one another. <BR /> <BR />UNESCO, in its response to the Programme for Government, highlighted its disappointment at the lack of a statutory duty to cooperate. Finally, in 2008 the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in its report <BR /> put forward a statutory duty to cooperate as a key vehicle for improving outcomes for children and young people. <BR /> <BR />I look forward to the debate.”
“<BR /> <BR />Criminal Justice Inspection, in its 2012 report 'Early Youth Interventions' highlighted the lack of cooperative working as being an issue in delivering the prevention of offending.”
“<BR /> <BR />I indicated that there is widespread support for the principles of the Bill throughout the children's sector. To be more explicit about it, I mentioned the support from the children's commission and the report from Queen's University that called for a statutory duty. This is something that the outgoing Children's Commissioner and the commission as a whole have supported. Children in Northern Ireland, the umbrella group for much of the children's sector in Northern Ireland, laid it out in one of its two key policy calls for action along with children's budgeting as being the priority policy issues for children in Northern Ireland. Indeed, when I launched the Bill recently, there were over 40 organisations, all of which work with children to some degree, at the launch event to show their support.”
“There are no speech and language problems, so I can now leave the room and get on with the rest of my work". When it is done badly, that family and child have to go to each and every one of those professionals individually. <BR /> <BR />A parent summed it up perfectly when she said that, for her, integrated working meant not having to repeat herself 30 times to every different person or part of the system. It is about the whole-child approach; the system wrapping around the child rather than the child and the family meeting the needs of the system and, as I say, rather going to every separate part of the system at different locations, the services actually come to the child. As I say, where those services are not needed, they step back and get on with other things.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. If I have indicated that that was the intention, I apologise. It is not to, I suppose, combine all the skills in one person, but to get those people working together so that there is a better understanding between professionals. Again, a lot of the evidence is that one of the outcomes of a requirement to cooperate is that professionals begin to understand people better. <BR /> <BR />I will give an example of how good practice works. If you look at, say, an assessment for special educational needs, you will see that there are various assessments. You will look at speech and language, motor skills, autism and various things. When it works, all those professionals sit and do the assessment. I have seen this working. A speech and language therapist might say, "Do you know what?”
“It is an interesting question. I will be honest: I have not considered that in relation to the Bill. The intent of the Bill is understanding that you do not turn 18 one day and all your needs suddenly disappear overnight. That is increasingly recognised through the services offered, but one of the things is about reducing transitions. Why, immediately on turning 18 years of age, do you have to have a different social worker etc? OK, your schoolteacher is not going to come with you, but, in some of these cases, why can the professionals not continue throughout your development? As I say, that has not been the remit of the Bill, but it is an interesting question and certainly something that I will look at in relation to the SEN review.”
“So, if it came from, for example, a pooled budget and from joint working, the conversations and problems could be ironed out. <BR /> <BR />As things are, there is still too much separate working, and I used the example of transition planning for young people to adult services. As those things happen separately, the solutions are not found. I believe that cooperative working can help overcome some of the problems, but I am certainly happy to pass on to the Member the many documented examples that I have.”
“I have outlined some, and I encourage all Members who will be scrutinising the Bill to speak with representatives from the children's sector because, as I say, I have been inundated with quite a few. Often, they tend to be particularly around the lack of joined-up working between Health and Education when it comes to special education needs or disability. An almost bizarre example was presented by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists around the owning of equipment for children in schools. Technically, the schools own the equipment, but it is the health providers who know how to work it, and because the equipment was commissioned from the schools' budget, they are responsible for equipment that they do not understand.”
“There is nothing in the Bill, the principles of cooperative working or pooling budgets that should increase administration or bureaucracy. Indeed, as I say, the evidence and the rationale for the Bill suggest that, whilst any transition can be difficult, I would only expect to see savings and a reduction in bureaucracy in the medium to long term as a result of the Bill.”
“I will finish this point and then I will take an intervention. <BR /> <BR />In relation to the suggestion that working together would increase bureaucracy, Sir Alan Steer said:”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 4 would reduce the requirement to review and publish a children's plan every year by having a review every two years and, in the third year, a new plan produced, if necessary. The clause essentially mirrors the existing provisions in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It adds a requirement to report on cooperation but reduces the frequency with which that reporting must take place. <BR /> <BR />Sometimes, others can put it better than we can ourselves.”
“I can give plenty of examples. I mentioned early intervention. Rather than have five Departments administer five separate funds, administering one fund would seem to be less burdensome. There is a requirement in the Bill for OFMDFM to produce a report on the working of the statutory duty on cooperation between Departments. That would be done every three years. On that, I will say that there is nothing in the Bill that states that the report must be discrete and distinct. OFMDFM already has to report on the child poverty strategy, and, indeed, it is working on a new strategy for children and young people, on which reports will have to be produced. Therefore, the task of having additional reporting on how Departments are cooperating should not be an onerous one.”
“Although any change will require adjustment and administrative change, and, in many cases, it will require a change of culture, the evidence shows that, when the changes bed in, resources are found to be used more efficiently. Ultimately, that means that more money can be spent on delivering for children. <BR /> <BR />To quote one parent —”
“In Brighton, £255,000 worth of savings was estimated to have been made as a result of the pooling of budgets and the council's use of resources. The weekly cost of residential or foster care in the council area reduced from £561 a week to £487 a week.”
“Most recently, the duty was strengthened under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, which places a strict statutory duty to cooperate on the planning, commissioning and delivery of children's services. <BR /> <BR />When new legislation comes in, there is always concern about any kind of bureaucratic or financial impact. Again, it is important to look at evidence from elsewhere. I looked at case studies done on Barnsley Council and Brighton and Hove City Council. In Barnsley, having integrated services and the pooling of budgets was found to have made savings in management costs. The Audit Commission awarded Barnsley Council three out of four stars for performance when it came to children and young people and three out of four stars for value for money.”
“One of the conclusions of Lord Laming's inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié was that a lack of joined-up working had failed that child. The Children Act 2004 placed a statutory duty on all local authorities in England to cooperate on children's services. In 2007, that statutory duty was extended to include schools and it was reiterated in the Children and Families Act 2014 for special educational needs provision. In England, where the statutory duty was introduced, that has been the road travelled. Indeed, the duty has been strengthened since its introduction. <BR /> <BR />In Scotland, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 contained a duty to commission children's services jointly. That was supplemented in 2004 with guidance for integrated services plans.”
“That difficulty is being exacerbated by the fact that health and education are planning separately for those transitions. Those transitions might take place at a separate time in the child's life and are multiplying the number of transitions that a child has to make. If there was a duty on Departments to cooperate in the planning for the transitions for a child, that anxiety, that disruption, that transition could be eased. Indeed, even without a statutory duty, we should be doing that. <BR /> <BR />We have evidence from elsewhere that a statutory duty to cooperate is the right way forward.”
“<BR /> <BR />A systemic example of failure was highlighted in the NICCY report on the transition to adult services for young people with disabilities, autism or mental ill health. It highlighted that parallel planning for the transition goes on in health and education. They are both planning for the same young person but separately, and the two never come together. <BR /> <BR />If we take the example of a child with autism, at any transition, it can be something as simple as the transition from the Christmas holidays to going back to school. That is a difficult transition. So, the transition from child to adult services, new people, new social workers, new health professionals, new education professionals will be a major life change.”
“That, to me, does not highlight a good way of doing government; it does not highlight a good way of using limited resources and delivering for children. I welcome the step in the right direction of the early intervention transformation programme. <BR /> <BR />While we have these good practices, it must become common practice. Cooperation must become systemic because there are plenty of bad examples where lack of cooperation is failing children. When I went out to consultation, and throughout the process of the Bill, I have been inundated with organisations that work with children coming to me with examples of where a lack of cooperation is failing the children whom they work with.”
“Clause 4 seeks to strengthen the principles of the CYPSP; indeed, the agencies outlined in clause 4 are members of the CYPSP. <BR /> <BR />Another recent example of good practice is the early intervention transformation programme. Throughout my journey in the Bill, I have highlighted early intervention as a key example of where lack of joined-up working was leading to the inefficient use of resources. At the all-party group on children and young people presentation from the CYPSP, it was highlighted that there were five Departments each with early intervention programmes. That is five Departments with five different sets of administration. For the organisations seeking funding from those programmes, it is five applications but all with shared aims.”
“The Bill is designed to make good practice common practice. There are examples of good practice. Whilst the Bill seeks to improve working, it is not to say that there is not good working. The Children and Young People's Strategic Partnership (CYPSP) is an example of where agencies have cooperated well, but, often, the evidence came back that the work of the CYPSP was predicated too much on goodwill. The agencies that sit within health had a responsibility to engage with the agencies from other Departments, but those agencies did not have the reciprocal duty to cooperate in return. Whilst goodwill would allow that to happen, in times of stretched resources and other priorities, there was a concern that goodwill was not enough.”
“The intention of the Bill is for it to apply to all children, and that is why we used the definition of "young people" as outlined in the legislation that created the Children's Commissioner, which defines "young people" as all people under 21. So, it is consistent with the Bill's aim to include all children and young people up to that age.”
“There appears to be a lack of clarity as to whether or not Departments can pool budgets in the way that I understand the pooling of budgets. There is ample evidence that pooling budgets is a resource-efficient way of delivering shared aims and outcomes. It is not required by the Bill, but it is an inevitable consequence of joined-up working. I think that it is important that the legislation is clear that Departments have that power to pool budgets. <BR /> <BR />Finally, one other aspect of the Bill that is worth outlining is the definition of "children and young people", because it did take some consideration. The definition of "children" is simple to a large extent, but there are various definitions of "young people".”
“<BR /> <BR />The second aspect of the Bill is an amendment to the Children Order. Whereas clause 1 is a duty on Departments to work together, this is essentially a duty on agencies of those Departments to cooperate with each other in the planning, commission and delivery of children's services. I said at the start that there had been a failure to cooperate in the draft early years strategy. I think that was at the strategic level, and I hope it is tackled by the high-level duty. I also said that the failure of the 10-year strategy was in its delivery, not the strategy itself. I believe that the amendment to the Children Order is the vehicle through which to help tackle some of the problems of delivery that we saw with the 10-year strategy. <BR /> <BR />The third aspect of the Bill is an enabling power to pool budgets.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are three key aspects to the Bill. There is the high-level duty, which requires all Departments to cooperate in furthering the achievement of the six high-level outcomes that were laid out in the 10-year strategy for children and young people. That was the answer to the question about what it is that Departments must cooperate to do. The six high-level outcomes were agreed between Government and the sector and were an example of cooperation in action. There was input from all sides in bringing together those high-level outcomes. To some extent, they mirror the high-level outcomes that are used in England, and, as I said, they have a high degree of buy-in. As I said previously, the 10-year strategy was lauded for its ambition and scope. That seemed to me to be a good place on which to pin the duty.”
“I had an idea and knew what I wanted to achieve — or, at least, I thought I did — but I was immediately asked, "A duty to cooperate on who? A duty to cooperate to do what? When should the duty be required? How can we enforce this duty?" I have to admit that I went away with my tail between my legs, but those were the right questions. I thank the Bill Office for challenging me in such a way, and, indeed, for the work over and above its required duty in helping to produce the Bill. Those questions really set me on the journey, which has been a long one, to reach this point. That meeting was over three years ago now, and it has taken that long to refine the policy objectives, to find the answers to those questions, to get the research showing that it is the right way forward and, finally, to get the Bill drafted.”
“This was the idea that I put to my party as the one that I thought had the potential to have a significant impact. It also had the potential to gain support with virtually all of the children's sector in Northern Ireland. I knew that, as a single-Member party, our resources were limited, we would have that substantial backing. Whilst it did not appear to be an obvious piece of legislation for the Green Party to work on, it was obvious to me, because of what the Greens stand for — looking towards future generations — that this was the Bill that the Green Party should be leading on. I was delighted that my party backed me in going forward with this legislation, and on that basis I met the Bill Office to discuss bringing it forward. <BR /> <BR />I have to say that the initial meeting with the Bill Office was a bit of a rude awakening.”
“We had the ministerial subgroup for children and young people, which certainly appeared to be a step in the right direction, but the inability to get Ministers to attend and the irregularity with which it met meant that it could not achieve the necessary aims. Children's champions were also appointed in each Department, but, again, that was felt to be insufficient, because it appeared to be merely an add-on to people's existing roles. The resources and the capacity were not there to allow those people, however well intentioned, to really tackle the lack of joined-up working between Departments. <BR /> <BR />When I was elected in 2011, I sat down with my party and had a list of ideas. I wanted, as a legislator, to work on a private Member's Bill, and I had a range of ideas.”
“That was laid out in the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) report 'Barriers to Effective Government Delivery for Children in Northern Ireland’, which academics at Queen's University wrote. Again, one of the conclusions of that report was that the lack of joined-up working was a barrier to effective governance, and it recommended legislation requiring cooperation as part of the solution to tackling that. <BR /> <BR />At that time, when I put the questions to the then junior Ministers, the statutory duty was being resisted, and other efforts were made to try to tackle the lack of joined-up working.”
“<BR /> <BR />At the same time, much discussion was taking place on why the 10-year strategy for children and young people, which had been widely commended for its ambition and remit, was not leading to the delivery that was sought. Indeed, I attended an event hosted by Save the Children when the then junior Minister Martina Anderson accepted that the delivery had not been adequate. I suppose the immediate question was this: if the strategy had been so well held up, why had it not led to the desired outcomes? <BR /> <BR />The analysis and response that continually came back, certainly from the children's sector and, indeed, from a number of organisations, said that there was a lack of joined-up working between Departments.”
“To me, as somebody who recognises the value of investing in our children, this was a key strategy. What I felt at the time was quite an innocent question was this: what Department of Health involvement has there been in the drafting of this strategy? I was told quite clearly that this was a Department of Education strategy. If we bear in mind that this was a 0-6 early years strategy and that the Department of Education largely does not come into contact with children until they are aged four — certainly aged three at the earliest — we had the situation where we had a 0-6 strategy that started at age three. For me, that was damning, and that was the day that I began to understand the need for a statutory duty to cooperate.”
“That did not happen until a meeting at which the Department of Education gave a presentation to the all-party group on its draft early years strategy. One thing I learnt from my time on the all-party group was how important early years are to the development of children. The strategy was to look at early years provision from nought to six years old, which is a key time in a child's life. All the evidence indicates that that is when the impacts of social disadvantage and poverty can really take hold if interventions are not put in place.”
“I commend the Bill to the House. I will give a bit of background to my involvement in this and the principle of a statutory duty to cooperate on the planning, delivery and commissioning of children's services. As far back as 2007, I was a member of the all-party group on children and young people. That was, of course, before I was elected, and I was there representing my employer, Brian Wilson MLA. The idea of a statutory duty to cooperate was brought up continually by representatives of the children's sector. Indeed, I questioned the then junior Ministers on their position on such a duty. I confess, however, that, at that stage, I had not yet been compelled by the arguments for the statutory duty.”
“I am simply calling for evidence-based policymaking and that we read the report before we condemn it.”
“I suppose that I should give some credit to Mr Wilson, who budgeted for the green new deal when he was Finance Minister. However, his colleague the Social Development Minister, then Nelson McCausland, decided that he would instead spend the money on a boiler replacement scheme, when all the evidence shows that, no matter how efficient your heating system, if you are burning any type of fuel for the heat to go out the roof or the window, it is inefficient and does nothing to tackle fuel poverty. <BR /> <BR />So, we had an opportunity in the Assembly to take serious action to tackle fuel poverty. Indeed, we had an opportunity to bring in investment from the private sector as well as the public sector to address fuel poverty. <BR /> <BR />I am not calling for a ban on smoky coal today.”
“So, fuel poverty is in the terms of reference and we do not know how much focus it is given in the report because we have not read it because we have not seen it because it has not been published. <BR /> <BR />Mr Wilson also made the argument about the price; he came out with figures that the price of smokeless coal is 20% to 50% higher. That is not the case in the figures that I have; it is certainly not as much as 50% higher, but I accept that he is in the right ballpark. However, he does not mention that smokeless coal burns for 40% longer and one third hotter. It burns hotter and longer and, if he does the maths, the consumer gets a better deal. <BR /> <BR />The other thing that I will say on fuel poverty echoes what Mr Maginness said. It was Mr Wilson's party, the DUP, that rejected the green new deal.”
“I will not give way for the simple reason that Mr McCrea is restricted to two minutes, and we have only two non-Executive parties speaking in the debate. Otherwise, I normally do give way. <BR /> <BR />It is a health problem that we have to face. Within the last week or so, the Chief Medical Officer attributed the spike in A&E demand to air pollution, so we do have a problem in Northern Ireland. We have evidence that we have a problem in Northern Ireland, and we need evidence on possible solutions as to how we tackle it. <BR /> <BR />The other issue that has been raised is fuel poverty. The Member states that insufficient focus has been put on fuel poverty in the report. Again, I say, how does he know? He has not read it. Indeed, specific reference is made to fuel poverty in the terms of reference where it says:”
“Instead, we have a Member who, at the mere hint of possible environmental regulation, has an instinctive knee-jerk reaction and forms an ill-conceived and ill-considered motion. <BR /> <BR />I want to address some of the points that Mr Wilson made. He said it when we were on the radio today and again in the House that Northern Ireland does not have the same problems with air pollution as the Republic of Ireland. That is true. We have only 500 people dying each year because of air pollution. That is not a serious problem; it is not something that we should investigate or take measures to tackle.”
“I have to say, however, that what he has brought us today is nonsense of the highest order. The motion refers to a flawed all-Ireland report, and, of course, that report has not been published. <BR /> <BR />I should apologise to the House because, when Mr Wilson tabled the motion I tackled him and asked him why he was putting this nonsense in. I told him that the report had not even been published. He has had a couple of weeks to come up with a few answers, and now it is the terms of reference and other such things that are flawed. However, that is not what the motion says; it says that the report is flawed. He has not read the report, and I do not see how the Assembly could stand over such an assertion. It is a perfect example of a Member and a party that have no interest in evidence-based policymaking.”
“The Assembly is used to hearing nonsense from Sammy Wilson as, indeed, are the people of Northern Ireland.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I have absolutely no idea where he gets the 20% to 50% figure from. Will he substantiate it?”