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 27 of 28.
“If we wish to pay tribute to William Hay and the role that he played here, we should do so by maintaining the dignity of his office. On behalf of the Green Party in Northern Ireland, I wish William Hay happiness and health in his retirement from this place and success in the House of Lords when he takes his seat.”
“<BR /> <BR />Much tribute has been paid to his manner and his way of seeking to bring agreement. That is why it is regrettable that perhaps the Speaker's office will be muddied when we debate the election of a new Speaker. It is important that it is a dignified role, particularly at a time when there is much loss of faith in these institutions. Bringing the Speaker's office into the remit of party political squabbles would be regrettable. I sincerely hope that will not be the case.”
“As we are all well aware, he is not responsible for the structures in which we act. <BR /> <BR />He brought a dignity to the office, which is important because the Speaker is a figurehead for the Assembly, and what he projects to the outside world is a reflection of the Assembly. Much has been made of the many public events that he hosted and the efforts that he made to make this a much more public Building. I particularly respect that, given that I grew up two miles from this place and had never set foot inside it until I worked here. I am delighted that people in the same situation who are growing up now will find this a much more welcoming and hospitable place than perhaps it was in the past. I thank Mr Hay for his role in facilitating that.”
“I always found William Hay to be a very likeable man. I think that that comes across today in the Chamber. It was not his job to be likeable; he was there to tell us off when need be, but the fact is that he was able to do so and still maintain a good personal relationship with Members here. As has been mentioned, whatever went on in the Chamber was set aside when personal contact was made outside it. <BR /> <BR />I give my particular gratitude to William Hay because I saw him as a friend to the non-Executive parties. He did all he could, within the rules of Standing Orders and legislation, to make sure that our voice was heard. Whatever frustrations many of us may have about the structures of the Assembly and the voice that it gives to opposition and non-Executive Members, he tried to facilitate them where possible.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Can she explain why the incentive of two ROCs set in Northern Ireland is considerably below that in GB?”
“I thank the Member for giving way, and I have a couple of questions for him. You do not release radon; you bring it to the surface, which fracking has the potential to do but geothermal does not. No water is produced, unlike in fracking, so that is another difference. Does the Member accept that there are two types of geothermal energy? There are the enhanced geothermal systems that require fracking and the normal geothermal system that requires no fracking.”
“We get much greater benefits. We get a long-term, clean, green, reliable renewable source of energy.”
“I do not have time; apologies. The differences are marked, but there are benefits. As I said, there is a cost-benefit analysis. The costs of geothermal are less, and the benefits are much better, because we get a clean, green fuel without carbon emissions beyond the process of extraction.”
“You would need one to three wells for a similar geothermal process. So, it does not involve the industrialisation that we would have seen if we had fracked Fermanagh. I should have started by welcoming the Minister's decision to terminate Tamboran's licence.”
“Where it does not involve it, we do not need to have this debate; where it does, we need to look at it. The question of hydraulic fracturing is a question of risk and benefits. What are the risks of fracking for gas? The risks are the possible release of methane and the contamination of water through the chemicals used. During the debate, somebody said that the same issue of bringing water back up to the surface would be required in the geothermal process. That is not the case. It is a closed-loop system, so we do not have the huge pools of contaminated water that you would have with gas fracking. <BR /> <BR />I will answer the question that Mr Wilson did not answer. It was proposed to have thousands of wells: 1,200 across Fermanagh and thousands across Ireland, north and south across the border, to frack that area.”
“Equally, the renewables industry should be a responsible industry and it should be regulated, but we also need to change the legislation that gives priority to gas. By virtue of the fact that we have a renewal heat incentive and renewable obligation certificates, we are acknowledging that we need to move away from fossil fuels and that we need to incentivise renewables. If we start from that basis, the statutory duty for gas no longer stands any justification in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I come now to the point that was raised about whether this is fracking. Fracking can be part of the process in geothermal. It can, but it is the exception rather than the norm. The vast majority of geothermal exploitation across the world has not involved hydraulic fracturing.”
“I suspect that one of the problems with geothermal energy is not to do with some of the distraction that has been created around the idea of fracking but the fact that the Department has a statutory duty to promote the gas industry. To incentivise the exploitation of geothermal energy would be a threat to the gas industry because, of course, it wants gas to be our main form of heating. The potential of renewable heat through geothermal energy is a threat to the gas industry and, therefore, it could be argued that the Department would not meet its statutory duty. <BR /> <BR />Clearly, we need legislation to regulate geothermal energy and I have argued for the regulation of the other industries.”
“The former Minister will be well aware that there is no energy to speak of being produced in Northern Ireland that has not to be subsidised in some shape or form. For example, we are giving £32·5 million to the gas industry to bring gas to the west, so we are subsidising energy and we will do so. The question is this: which energy should we subsidise? Which energy will provide the best long-term solutions in terms of security of supply, sustainability and price for the consumer? <BR /> <BR />Renewable energy is the only form of energy that can tick each of those boxes. We need to look at each technology, but we also need to start from the basic principle that renewable energy is the way forward. That is where I take on Mr Flanagan's point.”
“Unlike what the previous contributor may claim, we need to tackle climate change because it is caused by human activity and only the actions of human activity can stop irreversible climate change. <BR /> <BR />As things stand in Northern Ireland, we do not provide sufficient support for geothermal energy for it to be exploited. It is a new form of technology in the UK, although, as has been pointed out by other contributors, it heats up to 90% of homes in Iceland.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. And now for something completely different. <BR /> <BR />Geothermal energy is a clean, reliable source of energy; it is a renewable source of energy that we can access in Northern Ireland. Unlike fossil fuels, as the previous contributor said, it is not finite and it is not running out any time soon. It is renewable, so if we are talking about energy security, let us not talk about today or tomorrow but about the long term. <BR /> <BR />I question some of the previous contributor's figures. Geothermal energy has the potential to meet up to one third of our renewable heat targets by 2020, so it can make a significant contribution to producing heat. Those of us who have read and understand the science know that we need to move away from our dependence on fossil fuels.”
“How many wells on average does fracking require, and how many wells on average does geothermal require?”
“— exercise the responsibility that we hold and use it to ensure that institutions are transparent, accountable and use the responsibility that they hold accordingly.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whatever their socio-economic background, children are always vulnerable to the abuse of adults, and we must ensure that we —”
“<BR /> <BR />The Barnardo's report highlighted the vulnerability of young people in care and the level of sexual exploitation that many of them faced. It is incumbent on us that as well as this call today — I support it and welcome the motion from the Alliance Party — we must do more. We must look at how we treat children. <BR /> <BR />Discussing issues such as children's rights is the type of thing that vexes some people. We have become overly litigious as a society. Maybe we do not talk enough about responsibilities, but, when it comes to children's rights, these are the experiences and lessons that we have to learn from. The mistakes of the past are why we need a rights-based framework and the greatest possible protection for children, because they are one of the most vulnerable groups.”
“They are a vulnerable group, and we need to be ever vigilant of any abuse that they could be suffering. <BR /> <BR />In different ways, I, as a parent, and we, in the various roles that we play, have a power over children that comes with a responsibility. That applies to us as individuals and to our institutions, whether state, religious or educational — wherever adults have domain over children. <BR /> <BR />This case brings to light the importance of transparency. We talk about a position of trust, but there should never be absolute trust. That is the mistake of the past, when we had absolute trust in institutions to care for children. There must be accountability in whatever institution has dominance over our children — whether that is a school, religious institution or care home.”
“I will depart a little from what has been said and use the lessons of this situation, because the other way that we get justice for any victim of sexual abuse is to do all that we can to ensure that it does not happen today. We are looking at a historical event, although, as many said, it is very much present for victims and survivors, but abuse is still taking place. <BR /> <BR />A much-used phrase in the Chamber and elsewhere is that those who fail to learn the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat it. The lesson that we need to learn is about the place and value that we put on children in our society. There is an old phrase, "Children should be seen and not heard." We need to put that attitude to bed. Children's concerns and experiences must be listened to.”
“Many Members have spoken, and it is always difficult to speak last in a debate like this where there is unanimity. I will not try to outdo everyone else's abhorrence at the acts that are alleged to have taken place at Kincora Boys' Home and at the cover-up that appears to have been perpetrated to protect institutions and powerful people at the expense of children. It is clear from everything that has been said today — the argument has been made, and it can no doubt be won — that the only just act is for the allegations to be investigated as part of Fiona Woolf's inquiry and for proper powers to be given to uncover the truth and, where possible, to seek justice for the survivors and victims of the Kincora Boys' Home.”
“I am delighted that the Minister is minded to include animal cruelty offences in the schedule to allow them to be appealed if they are deemed to be overtly lenient. The Minister will be well aware of the public horror not only at the acts of cruelty that were committed in the case to which he referred but at what appeared to be a very lenient sentence. The Minister will be aware of other cases in the system that may be coming down the line. Will the timescale for implementing such a change impact on those cases?”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that, rather than meeting the NUS-USI to explain the changes he has already decided to make, a better approach would have been to consult it prior to that about how best to support students in hardship?”
“I support the motion. I welcome the Minister's commitment to further education. Whatever we do, we need to ensure that students facing financial hardship can access support, whatever the mechanism, when they need it.”
“There is a need for good accountancy. Certainly, relying on monitoring rounds is a worry when, as I say, I am not sure that this would be a priority, particularly given the hole in the health budget. <BR /> <BR />I go back to welcoming the Minister's commitment to further education, for which I give him credit. I do, however, find it hard to stomach the fact that his colleague said that he was the Minister who refused to increase student fees, when, as the Minister knows, we sat on many panels before the election during which he told me that I was unrealistic if I said that we could not raise student fees. So, it is clear that the credit there lies more with the overall Executive than with the Minister.”
“Perhaps that is a lesson, in that better consultation and discussion with student representative groups could avoid such a backlash in the future. <BR /> <BR />The point was made that it is demand-led and that perhaps greater money can be accessed in monitoring rounds, should it be needed. I am concerned about that approach, because, as we know, monitoring rounds have become ever-contentious, and greater demands are being placed on them. I am certainly not reassured by that approach. If there is a fear that we need extra money, that money needs to be there up front rather than seeking to get it through monitoring rounds. <BR /> <BR />I think that the Minister has been committed to further education. I will not make petty party political points —”
“<BR /> <BR />One thing that concerns me is the fact that some of the arguments made by the Minister and his party colleagues have been lost on the NUS-USI. I hear that the Minister is to meet or has met the NUS-USI. I wonder what consultation was done with it in advance of this decision. Obviously, as a student representative body, it will be the point of contact for many students in accessing those funds. Surely it is beholden on the Minister to have good communication with that group and to ensure that, if this is the right way forward, sufficient conversation took place with the NUS-USI and other student representatives to ensure that we did not have the reaction that we have seen. Rightly or wrongly, there was a backlash against the Minister's decision.”
“We have been told — this was pointed out most noticeably by Mr Lyttle, the Minister's colleague — that net funding for student support has gone up overall, which has to be welcomed. The increase in further education awards has been cited as one of the things that has compensated for the cut to the hardship fund. Again, if that is the case, what are the roles of those two funds? Are they complementary? Do they overlap? If it is the case that the student hardship fund is not successful in achieving what it seeks to achieve, does that need to be looked at? We need to find out what the solutions are. However, I certainly do not have the information to point to the correct solution as to where support needs to be tailored.”
“Indeed, the NUS-USI has stated that it has had to set up food banks to help some students. <BR /> <BR />I think that it is clear that there has been an increase in hardship, yet we hear that there has been a decrease in demand for hardship payments. The question that we have to ask is why. The Minister may well be able to give good reasons for that, but the need to better promote those funds has been highlighted and may need to be looked at. The core thing that we need to know is why demand has gone down, given that need appears to have gone up. If that is due to a lack of awareness, maybe we have taken this decision hastily in the sense that, if we do not have all the evidence for the reasons, maybe the preceding action was misguided.”
“I think it has been clear — I certainly have not heard anyone disagree — that there has been an increase in hardship. As the Member who previously spoke pointed out, that is something that we are seeing across society, not just among students, but with fewer part-time jobs available, or at least with greater competition for those jobs, students are less able to get that extra finance that many of us had access to during our student days through part-time employment. We are all well aware of increased living, energy, food and travel costs. Parental incomes, of course, are hit by wage freezes and increased unemployment. The use of payday loans is something that we have talked about in the Assembly. We obviously do not want to leave people in the position of requiring them.”
“I do not think that is acceptable. I do not think that it is good enough. It is time that our two main parties stopped pointing the finger at each other and stopped simply saying no to the Tories and worked out solutions rather than creating problems.”
“There is a debate going on at the minute in Westminster about whether there should be a mansion tax. We have a mansion tax break in that we put a cap on rates. Therefore, the poorest homeowners in our society subsidise those with the largest houses. Instead of having a mansion tax, we have done the reverse and given a mansion tax break. <BR /> <BR />The issue of making work pay has come up continually, yet, again, the Assembly made its choice and rejected my proposal for a living wage in all public sector contracts. We are not interested in making work pay; this whole agenda is about punishing the poor for being poor. It is not an argument about whether we should have cuts. No one is proposing in the motion or the amendment to do anything that will stop the cuts. It is which way we hit the poorest hardest.”
“I do not see how anybody from either side of the House can argue that we cannot afford £87 million to protect welfare spending on the most vulnerable, but we can afford anything between £200 million, if we want to take the DUP's figure, and £700 million, if we want to take the Treasury's figure, per year to give a tax break to big businesses.”
“That is a voluntary cut that we are going to beg for. Sinn Féin said in the debate that its priority was to protect the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. The corporation tax cut clearly shows that its priority is to equalise tax across Ireland to get a step closer to a united Ireland. That has been, is and always will be its priority. If the most vulnerable have to suffer in the short term, Sinn Féin believes that that is worth it in the long term. That is their policy. They go to the electorate and get voted in on that basis. But, at least, be honest about it: you are going to voluntarily impose a cut in public services to give a tax break to those in big businesses.”
“I am more wedded to us making our own choices for Northern Ireland than I am to parity. We make the choices, and we take the consequences. There are areas, such as air passenger duty, where we chose to break parity and take the financial hit. That was a choice and, again, one that we should be open about, because that was another cut that we voluntarily introduced to our block grant. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, whatever way we make these cuts, they will fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable in our society. What is really incredible and what makes the Sinn Féin position in particular a farce is that they are now going to go back to the Treasury to ask, "Can we have more cuts, please? Can we cut corporation tax, which will see up to £700 million come out of public sector spending?".”
“<BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin's proposal is not a rejection of cuts. We have had the October monitoring round. We are implementing cuts. It has happened. It has been necessary. I do not necessarily criticise Sinn Féin for taking the decision and agreeing the October monitoring round; it was the necessary, pragmatic thing to do. What I maybe do criticise is the pretence that by saying no to the Tory cuts we are somehow protected. That is not the case, given that we will see £87 million come out of our Budget this year. Essentially, it is a choice between two cuts. Do we cut welfare to some of the most vulnerable in our society — the poor, the sick and the unemployed — in an economic downturn, or do we cut public services?”
“Had the Bill come back to the House, we would have been able to make amendments. Indeed, prior to that, the DUP tabled a motion welcoming the introduction of universal credit. It is pretty much known that the DUP may be opposed to elements of welfare reform, but, ultimately, there is much of it that that party agrees with. <BR /> <BR />There are many other elements that, I believe, the Minister could have brought back with changes — for example, the sanctions. For something as simple as a missed appointment, you can lose your benefits for three months. There is no cost implication and no reason why we would have to breach parity to change that. This is the type of thing that we could have come back with, had the DUP been more enthusiastic about really challenging the welfare cuts.”
“We have to be honest about what the debate is about. It is not, as it may appear from the motion and the amendment, about whether we oppose Tory cuts or implement them. The reality is that the amendment and the motion propose that we implement cuts. What they disagree on is which cuts we implement. <BR /> <BR />The DUP's proposal is to implement welfare reform, and we have seen various reports produced on how much that would take out of the benefits coming into Northern Ireland. The one that I find has most basis in fact is NICVA's figure of £250 million on top of the cuts that have already been made to welfare. That is the DUP's proposal, and, to be fair, the party has been pretty upfront about it. As mentioned in the debate, the DUP brought forward a Bill, and we were able to debate it.”
“Has the precedent set by the use of retrospective planning permission almost sent a signal to developers that they should act first and get permission later? If so, what will be done to correct that?”
“<BR /> <BR />On behalf of myself and the Green Party in Northern Ireland, I would like to extend deepest condolences to the Paisley family, to his friends and to all of his many, many well-wishers.”
“However, if, as many have suggested, his legacy is to be that we have these Assembly institutions and that he was a significant, if not the final, piece in getting stable politics in Northern Ireland, and if that indeed is to be how we finally assess the contribution of Ian Paisley, then it is incumbent on all those who rise to pay tribute to him today, particularly those in the positions of highest responsibility — and it was noticeable that the First Minister and deputy First Minister spoke with such fondness towards the man — to do everything in their power to make these institutions work for peace in Northern Ireland and for the betterment of our citizens.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have heard it asked many times over the past few days, "What will history conclude? What will the final analysis be on Ian Paisley? What will be his legacy?" To come back to what Mr Robinson said, in a short speech you could not sum up Ian Paisley, and I do not think that history will ever become able to reconcile a standard narrative on his impact on the politics of Northern Ireland and beyond. He was too significant and complex a man to be distilled into such an easy conclusion.”
“When public figures or politicians retire, that is the time to reflect on their political career and to pass comment and judgement. Today, we mourn the death of a human being and remember him as a person more so than various roles that he played in his life. <BR /> <BR />I make the comparison with Margaret Thatcher, and it is an apt one, because both had a huge impact on our politics. Although he had a particular impact in Northern Ireland, there is no doubt that Ian Paisley's importance went well beyond this Province. Both equally divided opinion and provoked a strong reaction in people. As I said, the time of someone's death is a time to moderate our reactions and be respectful to the memory of the person and to the grieving family, friends and wider circle.”
“Ian Paisley had many titles over the years, the most recent one being, "The Lord Bannside". He was a councillor, an MLA, an MP and a Member of the European Parliament, and he had the titles "Reverend" and "Doctor" in front of his name. However, when we get to sickness and, ultimately, death, all those titles strip away. The status that they proclaim on us can mean very little, and we are left with a human being who is vulnerable to life's final conclusion. That is important to remember on the death of a public figure. We should remember the vulnerability of the family and the difficulties that they face. <BR /> <BR />It was with much regret that I witnessed some of the comment on and reaction to the death of Margaret Thatcher.”
“We had an investigation and we have had a conclusion, but we then have the party whose Minister is under investigation saying that it will not accept that conclusion. How would that be perceived if it was a judiciary case where the defendant stands up and says, "Me and my mates say I didn't do it, and there are enough of us to put our stamp on it and make sure it does not happen"? That is what is going on here. The Minister and his friends behind him have said that they do not and will not accept any judgement and, therefore, they are going to stop any judgement from being made. That is a disgrace. It undermines our democracy and it will further increase public cynicism as to the legitimacy of decisions taken in the House.”
“That is not good for democracy or for faith in democracy, as has been highlighted by other Members. <BR /> <BR />The institutions have been further undermined by the attempt to undermine the Social Development Committee and its investigation. The Members across the Floor may disagree with the conclusion of the report, but what is vital is that after the 'Spotlight' programme, the interviews, the evidence and every scrap of paper that the Committee could gather is put into the public domain so that the public can decide for themselves what their views are. The Committee came to a conclusion; that may have been political, but there is transparency for the public now as to the facts of what happened and what should have happened but did not happen. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, we now have a petition of concern.”
“There are serious issues at play here, including one that I have raised on many occasions, which is the issue of transparency in party political funding. There has been much speculation about the links between Turkington's and the DUP. There will always be speculation, and it will grow until there is evidence to prove or disprove it. When we have no public record of who gives money to political parties — until parties such as the DUP choose to support legislation to require them to make that transparent to the public — we will always have this speculation, and those parties can have no defence because there is no record of who gives money to them. <BR /> <BR />Mr Clarke suggested that we should not challenge big employers. I would say that the real issue at stake for the party opposite is that we should not challenge big donors.”
“OK. I will learn not to give way in future. <BR /> <BR />I cannot speak for the BBC. I am not here to represent it; I am here to present facts that challenge the Minister's statement of events. <BR /> <BR />The Minister had ample opportunities to check his records and the details of the meeting, and took none of them to correct the misinformation he had provided to the Assembly. In fact it was not until 12 December, five months after this query was first raised, that he finally made that admission, when it was very much in the public light and when the scrutiny and the public eye was on him. He then realised that he had no other option but to apologise for, in his terms, an inadvertent mistake. <BR /> <BR />As many Members have said, this goes beyond the individual issue to the credibility of the Assembly.”
“It is clear that what is at stake here is not whether or not the House has been misled but whether or not it was deliberately misled. The Minister's claim that it was inadvertently and unintentionally misinformed lacks credibility when we look at the timeline and the number of queries that the Minister faced around the issue. The first of five letters from the BBC to the Minister, as well as one to his special adviser, was sent on 7 June. Every Member of the House will know that, if the BBC or any journalist is asking questions about their work that suggest they have done anything untoward, it is given the highest degree of importance.”