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 4 of 28.
“<BR /> <BR />I think this shows that we are taking an evidence-based report from Queen's University, and the evidence on early years, as I mentioned, from Professor Heckman, Dr Suzanne Zeedyk and others.”
“In front of us we have three complementary proposals. That has been reflected in the debate, which has been largely a discussion on how we maximise benefits for children. We have a consensus that we want to support children to achieve their potential; we have a consensus that nurture units work in that regard; and we have a consensus that there should be secure funding for existing nurture provision. <BR /> <BR />I put it to the Minister that whatever final wording is agreed today, and we sometimes take that as the be-all and end-all — what is cast in stone — he and his Department should take into account the whole debate rather than the final wording. I see that he is nodding his head. If we agree any more, our constituents are going to be very confused.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. As he said, the impact of this will very much be on his Department. Is he reassured that we are going to get a successful outcome, given the potential impact that the derogation will have on our ability to provide social housing? Is he confident that we will be able to do the work required?”
“Can the Minister confirm that LGBT representative groups have sought to engage constructively with him and his Department? Will he give a commitment that he will not let the minority who may troll on the Internet affect the work that he does with that community?”
“I hope that we can agree not only on the end point but on some of the starting points that we need. I will say it again: if we invest in the family, we invest in the child, and we need to look at the child as part of a family unit.”
“As I said, families who do not need the support can opt out rather than always trying to get families who need the support to opt in. <BR /> <BR />This is, of course, an issue for Health and Education, and the Minister is well aware of his duty to work with other Ministers. We are discussing education today, but I ask the Minister to remember that, whilst his title is Minister of Education, he is, effectively, the Minister for children with responsibility for the childcare strategy. It is about looking at children not just in our school systems but in our community and throughout their early years before they even have contact with the formal education system. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the debate and the focus that it brings to tackling educational underachievement.”
“I thank the Member and partially agree that that is often where the problems arise. It emphasises my point about needing to work with families and communities. If we work with a child in school, we put the onus on that child to go back to potentially difficult family circumstances, almost to hold their hand. In supporting the family, we support the child, which is why my amendment specifically asks for universal early years services. The evidence is that we try to target families in particular need, which can add stigma and a reluctance to engage. If we have universal services, families can opt out rather than having to opt in. The evidence across Scandinavia is that universal service means that children do not fall through the gaps to the same extent, and Scotland is adopting that model.”
“Sometimes, however, we put too much emphasis on what schools can do. They are somehow required to do everything, and we almost forget about the child outside the school. Early years is not just about supporting educational development but about supporting the child in the context of the family and the family in the context of the community.”
“I appreciate the Minister's intervention, which is constructive and certainly helps me in my thinking. It is about getting the right services in the right places. The security that mainstreaming would give to nurture units is welcome. <BR /> <BR />With regard to the evidence, Professor Heckman and Suzanne Zeedyk have both spoken at Stormont, and a number of Members attended. I note that Simon Hamilton, through Assembly questions, raised the importance of early investment with the former Education Minister. When Roy Beggs was chair of the all-party group on children and young people, he was a great champion of early years investment. <BR /> <BR />We often put a lot of focus on our schools, which are a vital part of a child's life and, to a large extent, help to shape their future development.”
“Her work shows the harm done by not intervening in those early years. The disadvantage that can be caused through a lack of proper stimulation, love and care in early years can be very difficult to reverse later. Again, it is a question of getting it right at the early stages rather than trying to undo any harm that has already taken place. <BR /> <BR />It is unclear from the motion — I look forward to hearing from others — what we mean by "mainstreaming". Do we mean nurture units in every school? Are we talking about a universal service in that regard? If I make that assumption —”
“Whilst it is another debate for another day, flexible school starting age could contribute to the issues that we are trying to address today. <BR /> <BR />As well as the Queen's University report on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nurture units, we have ample evidence of the benefits of early years provision. Professor Heckman highlighted the pure economics of early years intervention: £1 spent in early years can save up to £9 in later interventions. I come back to the point that I made earlier: investment in early years has the potential to reduce the need for nurture provision, although it will not negate it entirely. <BR /> <BR />Dr Suzanne Zeedyk has highlighted in her research the importance of the brain development of a child in those early years, particularly from nought to three.”
“However, the reality is that we have limited resources. We know that investment in early years will, on the one hand, enhance the work of nurture units but may also, if done effectively, reduce the need for them. For me, it is more about where we start. I think that we can potentially agree on where we finish. It is more about starting earlier and making that earlier intervention. <BR /> <BR />As my colleague Clare Bailey put it when we were discussing the motion, we should get children ready for school before they start school rather than, as we sometimes do, trying to help them to catch up when they start school behind their peers. We should, as much as possible, ensure that no child starts school before they are ready.”
“I am fully supportive of the motion; my amendment seeks to complement it rather than in any way detract from its intention. Just yesterday, DUP councillor Peter Martin, a North Down colleague of mine, spoke in the 'News Letter' about the importance of early years. He highlighted the benefits that something as simple as reading to a two-year-old child can have if done on a regular basis. I hope that we can agree on the steps that need to be taken, even if there is slightly different wording across the motion and the two amendments. <BR /> <BR />The intent of my amendment is to say that, before we expand the ground floor, we have to get the foundations right. The Queen's University report is clear: nurture units work. They are effective and are an important part of the work that we do with children.”
“I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how he intends not only to support the Middletown centre further but to improve autism services more generally.”
“It seems to me to be in line with current thinking across a range of health issues, which is that we do more outreach, more work in communities and go out to families rather than take this residential approach, although I am minded of Kellie Armstrong's comments, which seem to give some credit to that approach. However, at a time when, across our health estate, we are looking to move more towards community-based services, this seems to move in the opposite direction. In the absence of evidence that that is what is required, I cannot support the thrust of the motion. As I say, there are so many areas where we need to put increased investment into autism services, including putting more resources into Middletown. However, I cannot support the thrust and direction of the motion.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Many issues affect families who have experience of autism: the time it takes to get a diagnosis; support after diagnosis; support in schools; support at home; and wider public awareness. In all my time of working on issues relating to autism and other special educational needs, the issue that the motion seeks to address has not come up. I have not heard anything in today's debate that compels me to believe that this is the pressing issue in autism services. <BR /> <BR />As many others highlighted — I will not go into too much detail because it has been said — the Middletown centre does excellent work. What I have not heard is evidence that it somehow needs to go back to an original purpose. I am not entirely sure why it has evolved in the way that it has; maybe the Minister will talk to that.”
“Does the Member agree that it is not about whether we support Middletown, which is a fantastic facility, but it is the proposal to go back to residential provision that is the issue?”
“Mr Easton said that the speed cameras have helped in that regard, but the road is treated like a dual carriageway, and many seem to drive at 60 mph along almost the full length of it. <BR /> <BR />I ask the Minister to look at the speed limits and at what physical measures can be put in place to mitigate the dangers. We cannot come back to the Assembly continually. As mentioned, in 2002, other Members here said that there had been too many road deaths then. There are too many road deaths, Minister, and, if you could help, we would gratefully appreciate it.”
“The recent death of a cyclist on the road has already been mentioned. <BR /> <BR />The road runs between our capital city and our largest town. It is busy, and it should be an infrastructure priority. Safety should take priority over speed. I ask the Minister to look at what assessment can be made of the existing junctions and, where possible, at what physical measures can be put in place to mitigate the current dangers. I also ask him to look at the speed limits. Anyone who drives along it regularly knows that the speed limit goes from 60 mph to 50 mph to 40 mph to 30 mph and then back up to 40 mph, 50 mph and 60 mph. The message that a lot of people get is that it is a 60 mph road, and they drive close to that speed for most of the stretch. That is certainly not appropriate in all places.”
“I start by thanking the Member who secured the debate that brings the Minister here today. Indeed, I thank the Minister for his presence. I will not repeat everything that has been said. The point is well made: it is a busy road and a dangerous road. We would like to hear from the Minister what can be done to improve safety. <BR /> <BR />The first issue I dealt with was when looking at parking issues with Seapark residents, exiting on to the road was raised by a number of them. Since then, as other Members said, the junctions at Carney Hill and Larch Hill have been brought to my attention. Alan Chambers made a good point: if we were building the road today, we would not pass the current set-up. It would not pass current standards. I back his point about the need for the separation of cyclists.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been following the selection of motions for debate and the parties that table them, and it seems to follow almost exactly the speaking list order, which is loosely based on d'Hondt. By my reckoning, that means that the Green Party should today be in a position to pick a motion for business in two weeks' time. Will you confirm whether that will be the case? How can a party that is not represented on the Business Committee access its entitlement to choose motions for debate?”
“The benefits of this flight have been repeated over and over again in the House. What hard evidence do you have that there were direct benefits of the flight? What was the magnitude of that direct benefit, and what cost-benefit analysis was done when he and the Executive agreed to this extra subsidy over and above the existing air passenger duty subsidy? If you are seeking to attract other flights, will you open such business cases up for public scrutiny? If you want us to conclude that you have not been reckless with public money, surely we need to see that detail. Otherwise, the suspicion is that not only is Northern Ireland open for business, but it is wide open.”
“How did we arrive at the situation where we conduct and pay for the investigation of benefit fraud but all the money recouped goes back to HMRC? Does the Minister have any plans to renegotiate that situation?”
“Does the Minister agree that this is very much a health issue and should be treated as such? Notwithstanding what she said about the recommendations of the report, will she seek to progress that this becomes a medical issue and not a criminal justice issue?”
“We have to change what we are doing, but we should be working together, and —”
“There has been a call — I think that I am right in saying that the Minister, to be fair, is opposed to it — for rent convergence between the Housing Executive and housing associations. The reality that the Housing Executive would be able to borrow at a cheaper rate, given its 88,000 housing assets, weakens that argument. It can also help us to resist any drive to increase social housing rents in the Housing Executive, allowing it to raise finance in other ways, without putting an additional burden on those already on some of the lowest incomes.”
“In the past few years, when we have been building more than we have been selling, over the course of the right to buy scheme, as it is commonly known, we have sold off more than we built. That cannot continue, so it is right that we suspend the scheme. <BR /> <BR />It is also right that we look at options for allowing the Housing Executive to finance new builds again. Rightly, a call will go out asking me, "What have you done?". I have commissioned research on what those options should be. Once that research is complete and I have had time to look at it, I will come back with my proposals for how that should happen. Right now, I want to support the principle of giving power back to the Housing Executive.”
“Different approaches are laid out in the motion and in each of the two amendments. I accept what the SDLP said about how the figures in the motion were arrived at. However, that is the motion that we will vote on, so I am inclined to support the Sinn Féin amendment, because it talks about going beyond what we do currently to doing some things differently. It is my view that we should suspend the house sales scheme. Although house sales are modest at the minute, another boom in the housing market will undercut our investment in public housing. Look at the effect of the scheme over decades: in 1973, there were 155,000 Housing Executive houses, while today the figure is 88,000.”
“Yet to listen to the tone of the debate, it sounds as though we are at complete odds, and there is almost an accusation that some parties support homelessness — it is a wonderful thing, and we should have more of it. Nobody subscribes to that view. We all want to tackle the issue, and we should work together to do so.”
“There needs to be collective responsibility but also collective action in seeking to address it. <BR /> <BR />I do not make those points to criticise the record of any party. I do so just to criticise the tone of the debate, which has not been particularly constructive. Sometimes, it is important in politics that we disagree; absolutely, that is what politics is about. But we actually do not disagree on this issue. We do not disagree that our levels of housing stress and homelessness are too high. We agree that we need to build more housing. We might disagree marginally around the issue of the house sales scheme, and I will come to that, but on the majority of the issues we agree.”
“I had thought that we had moved to the era of outcomes. Unfortunately, this debate has been very much about outputs — arguing over numbers; who built more houses than whom — when the reality is that, whether it was the last five years with the DUP holding the ministerial position or the four years previous to that with the SDLP, effectively there has been little change in housing need, housing stress and homelessness. There may have been some variation on a minor scale. <BR /> <BR />Effectively, what we have done is to keep a lid on the problem, but we have not got to the point where we have been able to address or tackle it. It is not just about those two parties. We have had five parties in government. Sinn Féin can criticise, but it has been the second-largest party in government for a considerable time.”
“Does she not appreciate, though, that continually selling off homes and then reinvesting, given that the homes are sold at less than market value, means that we are forever having to subsidise further, much more so than if we did not have the house sales scheme?”
“I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. When I brought an amendment to the House, it was disappointing that no one from the Executive Office was here to respond. Why does the deputy First Minister think it acceptable that, whilst other Members of the House are open to an independent investigatory process, there is a lower level of accountability for Ministers and no direct access for members of the public to make complaints? Why does he think that he and other Ministers should be less accountable?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He pointed out the UK-wide nature of the referendum. Does he not see the irony in that many who voted to get out did so on the message of "Take back control"? If every person in Northern Ireland had voted to remain, we would still have been taken out of Europe. What does "control" mean for the people of Northern Ireland whom he should be representing?”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. Just for clarification, my point was about making Sure Start a universal service, as it should be, and using the money for that.”
“I believe that there are better ways in which we can invest to get a better return for children.”
“I was told, "I am your daughter's health visitor. I am just calling to see if everything's fine". This was as I was about to buy my train ticket. "Yes," I said, "she has had a bit of a cold, but things are fine". "That's OK," came the reply, "I am just looking to sign her off my books". I have no criticism of the health visitor — I suspect that she had quite a lengthy caseload, and my family had flagged no problems — but, as a parent, I would much rather have had properly resourced services that meant that I could have had an interview with the health visitor to discuss all aspects of my daughter's development. I have sympathy with those who have reservations about ring-fencing the money —”
“Undoubtedly, if we put £18 million into physical education it will have benefit, but I believe that we can have much more benefit by investing earlier and, in my view, more wisely. <BR /> <BR />Look at the provision of Sure Start in Northern Ireland. That early years service is woefully underfunded. The Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) estimates that it would cost £37 million to make that a universal service, as it was before the Tories got hold of it in England. I think of my situation as a parent and the support that we get as a family from our health service. I do not want to be critical, because I know that things are stretched. It came to my daughter's review on whether she was able to move on from the health visitor provision. I was about to catch a train when I got an unexpected phone call.”
“We have to look at how better to support children and families in those circumstances; otherwise we risk treating the symptoms and not the cause. We need to change and to support the families and the communities in which the children live if we are to make a real difference. The evidence is there. The work of Professor Heckman has been referenced in a number of debates in the Assembly. He has shown that £1 invested in early years can save £9 in later life by tackling social disadvantage, educational underachievement and everything that comes with that. One programme in Bournemouth that invested in under-twos helped to tackle obesity further down the line. It also helped to improve language ability and educational outcomes.”
“In their defence, it is difficult to take resources away from other aspects, such as youth services, which Mr McGrath mentioned, schools or whatever it might be and say to them, "Well, all the evidence shows that we will get a better return in the early years". However, what we are talking about here is £18 million of new money that we do not have to take from anywhere else. That is why I sought to table an amendment calling for the investment to be put into early years provision, before a child even enters school. <BR /> <BR />There is a challenge for us. All too often we see children almost as if they existed solely in schools and all their ills can be addressed through the school system. Children exist before school, and they exist before and after school even when they are of school age.”
“When Carla Lockhart opened the debate, she talked about not wanting to waste money and not wanting to waste an opportunity. Undoubtedly, putting £18 million into children's physical education would not be a waste of money, but my fear is that it would be a waste of a much bigger opportunity. <BR /> <BR />I have worked on children's issues a lot since I have been in the Assembly, and one thing has come up time and time again: if you want to make a real difference, invest in early years. That is something that we have singularly failed to do; certainly, previous Executives have failed to do it.”
“On a point of order, Principal Deputy Speaker. Since your appointment, you have been called many things during debates, including Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that, in each instance, the Member in question meant no disrespect. <BR /> <BR />The Principal Deputy Speaker will have her own view on the term "Madam", but I argue that it is perhaps somewhat outdated. Can we review the titles that we give to the Speaker, the Principal Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Speakers and look at removing gender-specific titles?”
“Does he agree that, rather than taking a piecemeal approach to the review of various pieces of legislation, we should be looking at having a single equality Act?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree with me that our BME communities could be forgiven for thinking that they are not a priority? They had to wait for five years in the absence of a strategy; every year, groups do not get a decision on their funding in time; and there has been no review of the Race Relations Order, despite that being agreed by the Assembly close to 10 years ago.”
“I thank the Minister for her thorough answer. She referred to mental health issues and substance misuse. Obviously, the best solution to homelessness is to prevent it in the first place. Will she give a commitment that she will send sufficiently senior officials to the homeless strategy steering group to ensure that decisions can be made and to ensure that they can look at addressing issues such as detox facilities?”
“— and to make capital investments. My final point is that, whilst Mr Girvan pointed out that it was not the DUP's decision to change the rules about Housing Executive capital spend, every DUP Minister has upheld that decision.”
“Given the figures that have been outlined by others in the debate about stress on our housing waiting lists, that is one thing that should be looked at. <BR /> <BR />There is further opportunity because, as we look to the governance of our housing associations, we can look again at the governance of the Housing Executive. I am one of those who would like to see an amendment of the rules to allow the Housing Executive to build social homes again —”
“Will he also give detail, as we seek a reversal of the decision and a derogation, on the status of public finances and what discussions he has had with the Treasury on that point? <BR /> <BR />I said that there was opportunity because I think that there is. One of the consequences of the deregulation of housing associations is that they would be brought out of the right-to-buy scheme. That is something that I would welcome, and I would like the Minister's views on that. We have a significantly reduced social housing stock. If we go back to the 70s, we had 155,000 Housing Executive houses; we are now down to 88,000, plus the 40,000 housing association houses. That is not all down to the right to buy, but it has been one aspect of it.”
“So, I think that this is an Executive playing opposition for opposition's sake. <BR /> <BR />To get to the issue, if we can take it as read — I am yet to be completely assured that we will get our derogation and that we will have a deregulation Bill of housing associations — I would like to know the specifics of that because I think that there is both fear and opportunity in this, and what I look for from the Minister is to allay the fears and to ask him to seize the opportunities. Will he outline in any legislation that may come forward to the House, what impact it may have on strategic planning for house building programmes and how much control we can realistically expect to retain regarding stock levels?”
“I thank the Member for his question. The point is this: how can we know what the Government are doing if no statement has been made to the House? As Ms Mallon pointed out, there has been one public statement on the issue that lacked detail. This is a very complex issue; we are talking about the deregulation of our housing associations; we are talking about a derogation from Treasury and negotiations for such; and we are talking about an ONS reclassification. As I said, it is all very technical and should be all very boring, but we need detail. That is why the debate is taking place today. I do not think that that is unreasonable. Had there not been a motion, we would have been told that we were not on top of our brief. It is one of the biggest things that is happening in governance in Northern Ireland, and we are not even raising it.”