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 3 of 28.
“From Department to Department, Arlene Foster has presided over a catalogue of failures. As Environment Minister, she rejected multiple calls following a public consultation to implement an independent environmental protection agency. Later, the Mills review highlighted the systemic failure in the then DOE and the £250 million clean-up cost that we could be faced with in dealing with illegal waste dumping. There was an opportunity to put in proper regulation and enforcement, but Mrs Foster declined that opportunity, and the public will be left with the bill. <BR /> <BR />When she was Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister, we lost a £1 billion offshore wind farm project for Northern Ireland that would have been the largest in the whole of the UK.”
“In relation to the Mills report and the identification of illegal waste dumping across Northern Ireland, what progress has been made in achieving prosecutions, particularly in relation to the dump at Mobuoy?”
“— but we believe that the Assembly should at least commit today to that modest outcome.”
“Of course, others rightly spoke about the legacy issues that remain outstanding in Northern Ireland and the rights that are denied to the victims of our conflict here. <BR /> <BR />Human rights are for all. The Human Rights Act is for every citizen of the UK. It is something that we should not only uphold but embrace and be proud of. We should promote human rights to other parts of the world and act as an exemplar. Our amendment calls for minimum human rights standards for Northern Ireland. That is the least that we can ask for. It is not enough. It is not all-embracing. It is not making us a champion for human rights —”
“<BR /> <BR />In 1998, with the Good Friday Agreement and the protections that went with that, Northern Ireland became the exemplar of rights. We led the game by enshrining in law the protections set out in section 75. That led the way for others in the UK to follow. Unfortunately, we have done little since then to build on that foundation, and we are now behind the rest of the UK and, indeed, Ireland. Our failure to bring forward or even to discuss seriously and consult on a single equality Act has meant that the updating of rights legislation across other parts of the UK and Ireland has left us lagging behind. Indeed, access to those rights, which a single equality Act could simplify, has again been denied to our citizens.”
“We are well aware of the Human Rights Commission challenge on reproductive rights in Northern Ireland and the court ruling that we are not meeting minimum standards; indeed, we had the opportunity to correct that in the Assembly, but, unfortunately, that opportunity was not taken. <BR /> <BR />The right of same-sex couples to marry is being tested in our courts. Again, we have the possibility of legislating for that; indeed, a cross-party group of MLAs is seeking to bring forward a private Member's Bill to do just that. We know from each debate that we have had to date that there has been a rejection by some of the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples and, indeed, that the DUP blocked a majority vote in favour of it.”
“To give ourselves the credibility to lecture and admonish others, we need to ensure that, in Northern Ireland, we uphold the human rights standards that we are signed up to through the Good Friday Agreement and the UK Human Rights Act.”
“Since the whole debate about the EU and, indeed, the Conservative policy of repealing the UK Human Rights Act, we have felt the need in debates to talk about the threat from the UK Government to human rights in this part of the world. As today's debate shows, the threat is here and is much more local. Despite the Human Rights Act and our responsibilities in it, we are not meeting minimum human rights standards in many areas. My colleague Clare Bailey highlighted those in her opening remarks. Mr Dickson rightly raised the issue of human rights in China, and our First Minister should be raising challenges on very significant abuses of human rights in China, which are extreme in many cases.”
“There will be annoyance, for there is an attachment to the centres, if they are to close without good reason. <BR /> <BR />My final point is around the consultation. Much has been made of it, and there is a real feeling that it has not been a genuine consultation. I do not know whether the EA was trying to be innovative by using SurveyMonkey, saying, "Look how modern we are. We are using new technology and new ways of engagement". The EA should not be knocked, if that is what it was trying to do, but there is certainly a feeling that the SurveyMonkey questionnaire that was produced very much directed people towards giving the answers it wanted to receive rather than remaining sufficiently open to the answers that people wanted to give.”
“I suppose that, if we were to go down that road and rely on the voluntary sector — I am hopeful that, given the number of representations from your party, you are minded to take a different route — the question that I would put is this: what guarantee is there of sustainability for those centres? What will your Department do to ensure that sustainability, so that those alternatives are there? There is a real sense of connection, as well, to these places. There is a history that goes with them. That, in itself, is not sufficient reason to keep them open, but it is sufficient reason to look twice at the proposals. As was put to me by one teacher, this will impact on my children, because Bangor Central school uses Ardnabannon every year. I put it to the Minister that this will affect many of our constituents directly.”
“There is also Newry and Armagh, of course. The centres serve a wide catchment area, and when we come to the question of why there is an overprovision, as it is deemed by the EA, in South Down, it is clear from the number of people here today that many from across Northern Ireland access the centres and come from well beyond the borders of South Down. The point has been made by others that South Down has a lot to offer in terms of natural environment and access to outdoor facilities. It is right that the provision should be there. <BR /> <BR />Minister, there is talk throughout the EA document about voluntary provision.”
“After two North Down Adjournment debates, I joked with the Minister for Infrastructure, who is from South Down, that he had done more than anyone else to dissolve the border between North and South Down. I fear that, if the EA proposals are implemented by the Minister, he will have done more than anyone else to reinstate it. I know that he is paying attention to the debate and that he is not a man who wants to see a hard border, so, hopefully, he will not go down that line. <BR /> <BR />Adjournment debates are often constituency-based and, at a cursory glance, this looks like a South Down debate. However, we can see from the fact that we have representatives of three of the Belfast constituencies, North Antrim, Lagan Valley, Strangford — I will not list them all — as well as our North Down constituency —”
“We have heard reassurances from the First Minister, before the referendum vote and since, that there will be no hard border between North and South, but, five months on from the EU referendum, what practical measures have been suggested to ensure that we will not have a hard border between North and South in a scenario where we have a so-called hard Brexit?”
“It is not simply saying that we have to set against each other those in social housing who may wish to buy and those who can only hope for a social house; it is saying that, as a society, we should invest in social housing. As part of that, we should suspend the house sales scheme, but we should also look at the wealth in our society and look at the wealthiest and ask them to contribute more so that those who do not have more can get the very basics of life — food, shelter, warmth and security in their own home.”
“I could debate my working-class credentials with Mr Stalford all day if we so desired, but it is not about my identity nor his, my background nor his; it is about the reality of the situation, which is why not only do I propose and support the suspension of the house sales scheme, which I believe has been detrimental to our social housing provision, but it is why I am willing to stand up in this Chamber and say to my constituents that we should remove the rates cap, as, as I put it, my constituents in Kilcooley are subsidising my constituents in Cultra. <BR /> <BR />I will stand up and say that those who have more should pay more, and, in doing so, say that there should be more money in the pot to build new houses.”
“We need a sustainable solution to homelessness, and we cannot expect to find one if we build with one hand and sell with the other. Any review of the house sales scheme would find, when we look over the duration of the scheme, that, ultimately, we have sold more than we have built, thereby reducing our ability to provide for the most vulnerable in society. <BR /> <BR />I do not accept the point that this is somehow middle-class politicians telling working-class people that they do not have the right to buy.”
“I welcome that figure, but I welcome it in the context of the low estimation of 11,000 homeless, 22,000 in housing stress and almost 40,000 on the waiting list. If we look at recent sales, in the past couple of years, we have sold approximately 500 social houses through the house sales scheme. I do not believe that we can, on the one hand, subsidise the building of new homes while, on the other hand, we are subsidising the selling-off of our social housing stock.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, but I do not think that I used the words that he said. I will tackle his point head-on: many people will have purchased their house under the house sales scheme who may have otherwise, were it not for the house sales scheme, bought from the existing homeowner sector. Ultimately, as a state — we are a party that likes a big state, as the Member put it — we are reducing our ability to accommodate the most vulnerable in our society. Over time, through the gradual privatisation of our social housing stock, we are reducing our ability to provide for the most vulnerable — the homeless. <BR /> <BR />I come to the issue of the 9,600 homes that we intend to build, announced by the Minister.”
“You can talk about aspiration in this society, but the people whom I worked with had an aspiration of a permanent roof over their head, whether owned or otherwise. It was for a secure place to live, and the house sales scheme was not going to help them in that objective. In fact, as we have seen the number of houses in our social sector decrease —”
“I note that, as we debate the motion, the Simon Community, which, of course, provides services and accommodation to the homeless, is recruiting for 100 new jobs. As our social housing sector contracts, unfortunately, our homelessness sector grows. As a former employee of the Simon Community, I suppose that I welcome the good work that it does as an organisation, but I know that those who work for it ultimately do not want the see the charity having to grow. They want to see the problem of homelessness resolved. <BR /> <BR />I speak on the motion with that experience. I ask myself, quite genuinely, what impact the right-to-buy scheme has on the most vulnerable in our society. If you are looking for the most vulnerable, you do not need to look much further than the homeless.”
“The Member talks in very strong words about the permanence and security of owning your home. At a time when we have just come through an economic crash and a number of repossessions, does he not agree that the bank owns your home until you have paid it off?”
“To further counter Mr Stalford's point, whilst 500 out of 88,000 does not seem a lot, it is a significant number when we are only proposing to build 2,000 a year.”
“I come back to my previous point. He talks about heterosexual offences, but they were not by virtue of heterosexuality. This was discrimination against the whole homosexual community, and therein lies the difference. There is no law that has been repealed that discriminates against the whole heterosexual community in this way.”
“As I say, today, we, acting as a generous majority, take the first step towards our LGBT community. It is a small first step, and others must follow.”
“In cases of clear discrimination, whether it be against, as in this case, the LGBT community, on the issue of slavery or, further back, with the burning of so-called witches, there is shame in our past. We as a state and as legislators should recognise that and seek, where possible, to make reparations and put it right.”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not accept it when Mr Allister used terms such as "rushing enthusiastically" for LGBT rights or said that we jumped on the bandwagon. That is the last thing we can say this Assembly has done, although I would welcome it if we had. Today is an important first step. <BR /> <BR />I do not accept that today we validate homosexuality. It is valid. We do not have the power or the right to do that. It is normal sexual practice by virtually every definition of the word normal. I welcome the large degree of consensus here today, but let us not overstate our power. We do not validate homosexuality; we are not so arrogant. It is normal, and it is valid. <BR /> <BR />There is an important distinction to be made between the criminalisation of homosexuality and other laws that have become obsolete.”
“I apologise if I used any of that language or those derogatory terms in ignorance as a child. <BR /> <BR />This should be and is a proud day for this Assembly. In fact, it is a proud day for Northern Ireland. As my colleague Clare Bailey pointed out, assuming it is passed, this will be the first piece of legislation to come to this House to promote and advance the rights of the LGBT community to be passed in Northern Ireland. Civil partnerships came into being in Northern Ireland under direct rule, and homosexuality was only decriminalised through court action. I welcome the fact that we stand on the verge of making a democratic decision to support and enhance the rights of our LGBT community.”
“Often when we talk about privilege in our society, we mean wealth. I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth, but I recognise that I have many other privileges that I was born with rather than earning them. I am white, I am able-bodied, and I am a cisgendered straight male, and with that comes many privileges that I have been fortunate to benefit from. <BR /> <BR />I want to be part of a generous majority. As someone with privilege, I want to extend, as much as possible, the benefits I have to others. As somebody who grew up in a society, and certainly in the school playground, where the term "gay" and other derogatory terms to allude to sexuality were used as terms of abuse, I would like to apologise, on my own behalf only, because I do not have the status to do so for the state or for others.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Will he not accept that there is a qualitative difference between the two points that he makes? A homosexual man was attracted solely to homosexual men and, therefore, was being outlawed effectively from having sex in a way that was natural to him, whereas, the example that you gave where the person had sex with a 16-year-old, their sexual attraction was not solely to 16-year-olds. They were not discriminated against by the state.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He outlines a number of procedural reasons for him not to be happy with this proposal. If all manner of consultation had happened and all checks and balances had been gone through, would the Member support it?”
“I thank Members for their contributions and look forward to hearing the Minister's response.”
“It is one that feels a bit close to home in that regard. <BR /> <BR />Minister, my suggestion is about communication, even if it is through MLAs, so that we can communicate more widely what the plans are. Maybe I do not do enough to find out these things, but what are the plans to roll out new LED street lighting or new tarmac pavement to replace old cracked paving stones? That communication might help with some of the frustration. If people feel that they are on the list and their time is coming, and we can communicate that, they may not put as much pressure on us, and, in turn, we may not put as much pressure on Transport NI. It is those who feel that their turn is never coming who will shout the loudest. I put that out as a suggestion and make the point about revenue raising.”
“As I have said repeatedly, our constituents in Kilcooley should not continue to fund the rates of our constituents in Cultra. That might not be a popular thing in Cultra, but I think that it is fair point of view. <BR /> <BR />As I say, these are the issues that come up time and time again. One suggestion that should not have a huge revenue impact is that about communication. One of the things that are said to me time and time again is, "Our street has not been done in 30 years, yet the street round the corner was done only last week". As for street lighting, it does not help that my street got brand new LED lights. They are lovely, and I am very grateful for them, but my neighbouring streets do not have them, so people will, I am sure, look at that and say, "Oh aye, the MLA gets new lights".”
“We can choose to raise revenue, which means somebody paying more somewhere, and I reference the recent debate about reducing parking fines. Time and again, we hear proposals for where we can reduce revenue, but reduced revenue means, in most cases, reduced services, bar finding efficiencies. To be fair, a lot of work has been done by Departments to find efficiencies. We sometimes need to find more revenue. It is important to put it on record that, if we want more, we will, to some extent, have to pay more. That is why, today, I welcomed some of the Finance Minister's revenue-raising proposals on rates, some of which I have been calling for for some time, including lifting the cap on rates. That will have a disproportionate effect on residents in North Down, but it is right that those who have more and can afford to pay more should do so.”
“There is no doubt that it comes up time and again when I go round the doors, whether it is in respect of weeds, cracked pavements or potholes on roads. Constituents get frustrated because they have reported things many times to many MLAs, and we all get frustrated at the Department's apparent lack of ability to resolve the issues. I have sympathy because I watched his predecessor, Danny Kennedy, make the point that there would be consequences if more resources were not given to his Department, and he was told to live within his means. So, he sought to introduce revenue-raising measures, but he was told that he was not to do that. <BR /> <BR />We have to be realistic, and we have to be honest with our constituents about the fact that we have choices to make.”
“I thank the Member for proposing this topic for debate. I am sure that, when he did so, he did not realise that we would be here until this time. I will not blame him for that; I will blame the Ministers who made the various statements this morning. I also thank the Minister for being here so late for what is the second Adjournment debate on North Down in recent times. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that he has perhaps done more than any individual in Irish history to eradicate the border between North and South — Down. I appreciate him taking the time to heal some of the old wounds that we may have had in the past. <BR /> <BR />I have sympathy with the Minister on the issue, but I, of course, share many of the frustrations that my colleagues have about contacting Transport NI, in particular, about the issues.”
“I appreciate the Minister giving way. I appreciate the positive impact the NIRO has had to date, but what options is he considering going forward, for example, through CFD or even negotiating Northern Ireland's inclusion in the refit?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. A couple of people have drawn Ofgem into it when discussing responsibility. Given that Ofgem administered the scheme UK-wide and that it was only in Northern Ireland that the scheme went awry, does he not agree that responsibility is firmly with the former Minister, Arlene Foster, who implemented the scheme?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Is he aware that, whilst this was a UK-wide scheme, the rest of the UK made a decision to effectively reduce the subsidy as demand increased to make it sustainable? It continues to exist in the rest of the UK. Only in Northern Ireland did we manage to muck it up.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Given that the renewable heat incentive was, effectively, set up by the UK Government and all we had to do was administer it, does she agree that the blame for this shambolic situation can be put only on those who were in charge — effectively, the First Minister in her previous role?”
“There will have been Barnett consequentials to the pay rise that was given to teachers in England. Whilst I appreciate that that would not have been ring-fenced, did the Minister make the case to the Finance Minister that that money should come to him and his Department?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer and for looking at the scheme again. He will probably not be surprised to hear that I am not disappointed that Sammy Wilson is no longer the Finance Minister. He suggested in his earlier statement that this may be part of a package of measures. How does he envisage bringing that package forward? Is he proposing primary legislation, or will it be done through regulations?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer and, indeed, for the qualification at the end. It concerns me that, whenever we talk about early years, we immediately look at preschool provision and childcare. As the Minister will know, early years is everything from nought-to-six, which is why it is key that he works with his ministerial colleagues, particularly the Minister of Health. To come to my point, Sure Start is, obviously, a targeted provision in Northern Ireland. Are there any proposals to expand that or to even look at it as a universal service or something similar?”
“As a Member from the other constituency that is greatly affected by the proposal, I unequivocally welcome the removal of the rates cap. I have long argued that it is not fair that my constituents in the Kilcooley Estate subsidise the rates of those who own estates in Cultra. The Minister said that he is confident in going forward with his proposals. Given the position of other parties on this issue in the past, what evidence does he have for his confidence that he will get political support from the DUP for this positive move?”
“It is intolerable that those who wish to wear suits by day and balaclavas by night are paid from public funds. What lessons have been learned from this fiasco to ensure that the First and deputy First Minister will have the power to act if such a circumstance were to arise again?”
“— the DUP. When the deputy First Minister responded to me on the matter the last time, was he speaking on behalf of himself and the First Minister?”
“I thank the deputy First Minister for agreeing to meet me. I am sure that he will be aware that that had not yet happened when the question was submitted. He may be aware that I originally proposed the extension of the powers of the Commissioner for Standards in the previous mandate and that, unfortunately, my proposal was blocked by —”
“When we reach that level of consensus, we should bank it.”
“However, every time we call for additional funding or receive additional funding — recently, £18 million was proposed for PE to tackle obesity — we have to take those opportunities to invest in nought to six, follow the evidence and make those impacts. <BR /> <BR />So, in the spirit of the debate, I will not push my amendment to a Division. I appreciate the SDLP magnanimously proposing to support it but we have not had a divisive debate and we should not have a divisive outcome. I am happy, as was suggested, to bring forward a motion specifically on early years. I ask simply that I be empowered by the Business Committee to do so or that another party brings it forward in conjunction with the Green Party. We should take consensus when we have it and build on it. Even Mr Allister my honourable colleague gave credit to the Government.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I take his point that evidence does not lead to quick change. That is the point I would make about early years and why, at every opportunity, I keep making the point and the argument, as Mr Attwood just did, that this is the single most important intervention that we can make. <BR /> <BR />Whilst we have that evidence and whilst the Minister has, seemingly, agreed to take into account the wider aspects of this debate, we have not seen that paradigm shift towards early years funding. I appreciate that you cannot simply say that, overnight, you are going to stop funding these services for children and young people in later life because the evidence is that the benefit is earlier. It has to be a managed transition.”