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 5 of 28.
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. The issue has not come to the Assembly Floor except through questions for oral answer, which I have raised, and we ran out of time before one was even discussed. So, to the best of my knowledge, and apologies if others have asked questions, one response and supplementary from the Finance Minister is all that we have had to debate an issue that massively impacts on public spending. Today should be boring, it should be informative, but it has got caught up in heat, and that heat has been generated by an Executive that seem to be playing opposition for opposition's sake. <BR /> <BR />To get to the issue —”
“It is not unreasonable that we should seek to speak on something whose impact would be, as I say, over £100 million on our annual block grant.”
“When I looked ahead to the debate, I anticipated quite a boring debate. This is a crucial issue that speaks to millions of pounds of public spending and potentially having to rewrite budgets if we do not get the derogation that has been talked about. It is a vital issue but a fairly technical one. It is fairly dull issue on which, as is clear from the fact that the Executive parties are supporting a motion and amendment from the official Opposition, there is consensus. We are having a row about something that we agree on. It speaks to an Executive who are insecure about the idea of an Opposition —”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not accept that the inability of the Housing Executive to make those improvements was a political decision made by DUP Ministers?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. One of the first questions that I asked in the Assembly, in 2011, was about residents' parking schemes. The issue then was the hold-up in Belfast: now, five years on, what reassurance can he give my constituents that the hold-up in Belfast will not mean that we never get to North Down?”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. There has been an attempt to turn this into something that is only relevant to the people in this room. When Arlene Foster issued a licence for fracking in Fermanagh, there was a public petition, which I presented to the Assembly, there were protests and there was huge public interest. The complaints that came to the Standards and Privileges Committee against Ministers were from members of the public. This is an issue of importance to the public.”
“I will indeed. I was very clear that I felt that she had. What we need is a process to decide who is right.”
“It is indeed. I repeat the point that the then Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister was very clear that she felt that she had not breached the code. I was very clear —”
“I am sure that every criminal would love to be able to go court and say, "I am sure that I have done nothing wrong, Mr Judge". Would that not be a wonderful judicial system?”
“If we are to meet the levels of democracy, accountability and transparency that we want, we cannot continue to have the situation in which I, as a Member, am open to scrutiny but a Minister of our Government is not open to the same level of scrutiny.”
“If that is the case, why do the Executive not come forward with a proposed amendment to the ministerial code to initiate a process by which these allegations can be heard and adjudicated upon in an independent manner? <BR /> <BR />Often, the stumbling block in these cases is cost. However, we already pay in the region of £60,000 a year for the role of our Commissioner for Standards and its office. That could be the cost of a single judicial review that would have to be taken to investigate allegations of breaches of the ministerial code. There is a way of doing this: we can extend the role of the Commissioner for Standards. We have the mechanism and model in place, because that is how we investigate Members.”
“Ministers should be held to account, as Members are, for their actions in the role as Minister. What is the point of having a ministerial code of conduct if there is no mechanism for investigating breaches of it? It is not worth the paper that it is written on. <BR /> <BR />That is a historical case. We have it again with the allegations around the Brexit document. I come back to the point that I cannot stand here and say with absolute certainty that the ministerial code has been broken. I suspect that it has. I say to the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and every other Executive Minister, "Open yourself up to independent, transparent and fair process". If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. That is what I hear from the Benches opposite quite regularly.”
“It turned out that her husband owned land within that licensed area, and I argued that that should have been declared. She argued that such a declaration was not required, and I argued that there had been a breach of the code. What is left is suspicion among the general public. Arlene Foster, the First Minister, who was the then Enterprise Minister, can declare her innocence and I can allege her guilt, but we never get a conclusion or satisfaction. <BR /> <BR />If I am making a spurious allegation, that should be brought to light. There should be an independent process, and I should be put in my place and told, "That was a scurrilous accusation". Equally, if a Minister has acted inappropriately, there should be an independent, transparent process of investigation.”
“On each occasion, we were unable to investigate and had to tell complainants that there was no process for investigating their complaint. The only recourse for the general public is a judicial review, which is prohibitively expensive for most people. <BR /> <BR />As Members, we are held to the Northern Ireland Assembly's code of conduct — rightly so — and we have an independent process for the investigation of complaints. On this, Ministers in the Executive have nothing to fear if they are acting with probity and integrity. It works against both the complainant and those who are complained about. I alleged a breach, for example, when the First Minister, who was then the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister, licensed an area for fracking.”
“I made the point that there were two possibilities; I did not say which one was true. <BR /> <BR />We have a situation in Northern Ireland where business cases, which are ordinarily published at Westminster, sometimes do not even exist. Let me look at issues that arose over the summer. Where were the business cases for the bailout of City of Derry Airport and the Newark flight? Where did that money come from? Where was the accountability to the Assembly? We are operating with lower standards than should be expected of a devolved Government. <BR /> <BR />I am a former member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, and the ministerial code of conduct came up time and time again in that Committee. I was checking the figures, and, in the last mandate, the Standards and Privileges Committee received five complaints against Ministers.”
“There are two possibilities: the First Minister saw the document and chose not to publish it, or she never asked to see it, in which case she is not on top of her brief on such a major issue.”
“Over the summer, we saw a number of issues that we would not even have known about were it not for investigative journalists bringing them to light. The appointment of David Gordon was announced but the process was kept hidden, and it was Sam McBride's work that uncovered the mechanism used. The Brexit document, which the proposer mentioned, was uncovered after a freedom of information request. The legal responsibility was ignored until it was convenient to publish the information. We have heard the First Minister say that she never saw that document. I put it to her that, if I knew that a referendum of such significance to Northern Ireland was coming up, I would have been asking my officials, "Have you done any work on the outcomes of this?".”
“That is effectively what we are getting. That highlights the point that is being made in this debate, as mentioned by the proposer: we have an Executive who say, "We have the votes. We have the power. We don't have to". If I ever again hear a Minister say to me, "We don't need legislation for this", because this Executive have shown that, if they are not required to do something, they will not do it. There is no respect, no accountability and no openness, and that has to change if we are to have a genuine thriving democracy and our devolution is to meet the standards of other devolved regions and other Parliaments. <BR /> <BR />Accountability requires transparency, and, for Ministers to be accountable, we have to know about the decisions they are making and how they are making them.”
“It is the height of arrogance and disrespect that, when we are debating a motion around transparency, openness and accountability, the Executive Office, with its four Ministers, could not send one to respond to this debate or even, indeed, one from the suite of Ministers that we have in government. We call on the whole Executive, and any one could have answered on behalf of the Executive, yet not one is here today to answer the criticisms that have been made.”
“Given that the people of Northern Ireland voted to "Remain", will the First Minister give a commitment that there will be no Northern Ireland Great Repeal Bill? Can she outline what work is being done by the Executive to ensure that existing EU laws are enshrined locally?”
“I previously worked in the field of community drug and alcohol awareness. I saw evidence that the gateway drugs are tobacco and alcohol, not cannabis.”
“Even if the detail and the progress that I would like to see is not all contained in it, it is at least a vehicle for change, debate and the modernisation of our licensing laws. However, I see it as baby steps, and I hope that, over the passage of the Bill, we can grow up a lot when it comes to how we regulate and license alcohol sales in our society. I support the Bill's progress, but I hope that it will see major reforms before its Final Stage.”
“Our licensing laws are undoubtedly complicated, and, having researched them, I am still unclear as to what some of them are, so those who have not had cause to look into our licensing laws in great detail can only be confused. <BR /> <BR />Reference was made to an example of where we are further complicating things, and that is the requirement on restaurants to display on signage when and in what circumstances they can and will serve alcohol. The Minister referred to restaurants acting like bars. I am interested to see why we need that distinction in our licensing laws and why we feel the need to have so many different categories of licence. <BR /> <BR />As I said at the outset, the Bill is a long time coming. It is to be welcomed.”
“I have not seen the briefings from the police that say that it is necessary, so I will look at those. I will listen and make a decision, but my instinct is that the extra restriction is the wrong direction of travel. <BR /> <BR />That may be a counterexample, where there is arguably a simplification in aligning entertainment and liquor licences. Although, as I said, in my view, it is moving in the wrong direction. Overall, however, there has been a strong, justified call to simplify our licensing laws. I am not sure that the Bill meets that challenge, and, through the Committee, I am happy to interrogate how we can do that on a wider basis.”
“I have no set position on this at this point in time, but I have some concern about the proposal to align entertainment licences with liquor licences. I suppose that there are two ways that you can do that. You can move liquor licences to entertainment licences, and I would have perhaps been more positively disposed to that. Instead, we have gone the other way and seek to further restrict entertainment licences. A lot of the drive behind the need to reform our licensing laws has come from those who want to see a degree of liberalisation or modernisation — the term that is often used — of our laws. This proposal runs contrary to that. I will listen to the evidence as to why they feel the need to do that. The Minister said that it would assist the police.”
“They have certainly caused much consternation in the industry but also among our constituents, who want to enjoy the extended bank holiday weekend in licensed premises. I said at the start that I fully respected the religious views that exist in our society and the right of people to uphold religious practice and customs, but I do not see where those who do not subscribe to those values in any way impinge on those who do by consuming alcohol in licensed premises as opposed to at home, which is clearly what takes place instead. I do not fully understand the need for our restrictive licensing laws over Easter. I welcome the small step that has been made in extending the opening hours for the Thursday before Easter, but we can and should go further than that and normalise the licensing laws for the Easter weekend.”
“To me, it seems reasonable to look at whether that could be common and normal practice at weekends, but I do not have set views on that. I am open to hearing the evidence and the debate. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the half an hour extra drink-up time. It is a one-year trial. I do not think that it will see the decay of our civilisation, so I suspect that it will be a successful trial. I hope that, after the one year, the Minister will be open to extending it. To be fair to the Minister, I am taking it as read because it is in there that he is open to that. I hope that the one-year trial becomes normal in future. <BR /> <BR />Easter opening hours have caused much debate, certainly on radio phone-in programmes.”
“As a member of the Committee, I will hear the briefings from the industry, which has been referred to a lot. It is important that we look at how we support not just our tourism and hospitality industry but the constituents who elected us, who enjoy their evening social life and do not feel that it is the Government's place to tell them what time they should finish drinking and what time they should be home and in their bed by. <BR /> <BR />Let us look at some of the key provisions in the Bill. We have the welcome proposal to have extended opening hours, but it is limited to 12 days a year. I do not know some of the evidence that the Minister has available on how that helps to improve public health and safety. Why was 12 days chosen? Why such a restriction? Why not more frequently?”
“That is why, although the Bill is coming from the Minister for Communities, we need input from Health and, in terms of crime and public safety, the Department of Justice. I hope that, in the four years since the initial consultation on the Bill, that evidence-gathering has taken place and that perhaps the Minister will refer to some of it as he winds up. Those are the types of question that I, as a member of the Communities Committee, will tease out as part of the deliberations. <BR /> <BR />I support and welcome the Bill today. It has been a long time coming, but, to be fair to the Minister, he has acted quickly to bring forward what is the first piece of significant primary legislation in this Assembly mandate. I welcome the Bill, but it needs my significant amendment.”
“<BR /> <BR />Jonathan Bell spoke at length — I think that he took the extra half hour of winding-up time that debating a Bill allows for — and he highlighted the dangers of alcohol. Nobody can say that alcohol is a benign drug. Without getting into the debate about cannabis, I do not think that anyone would make the point that alcohol is a benign drug. We know the harm that it does in our society. Jonathan Bell read out the number of deaths each year, and we know about the impact on families and the alcohol-related acts of domestic violence. I do not want to stand here and say that alcohol cannot be harmful. However, that does not necessarily justify the restrictions in our licensing laws, unless we can demonstrate that they reduce that harm. I put that out there.”
“In the Bill and in our discussion of the issues with alcohol we have to balance personal freedoms with the need for public health and safety. In at least one aspect of the Bill, we have to look at respect for religious practice, but we have to balance freedom from religion with freedom of religion. I hold the pillar of personal freedom very highly, and we should restrict personal freedom only where we can demonstrate through sound evidence that there is a need to do so for reasons of public health and safety. The difficulty with our licensing laws as they currently exist and, indeed, as they would exist if the Bill were passed unamended is that they place significant restrictions on personal freedoms without the evidence that they do what they purport to do, which is to reduce alcohol-related harm.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He made the point earlier about alcohol-related deaths, and, of course, we should be concerned about them. He has outlined the role of Hospitality Ulster and the code in moderating alcohol consumption in pubs and clubs. Is that not an argument for why we need to ensure that we support the industry to promote responsible drinking and reduce alcohol-related harm from the more harmful practice of drinking cheap supermarket alcohol at home?”
“The Minister will be aware that a number of properties in Bangor were identified as having defective cavity wall insulation. That report was made a number of years ago. What has been happening in the meantime?”
“Politicians were at the table during sales. We need to get to that cronyism and weed it out.”
“We need to ensure that political appointments are the right appointments, that the job is done correctly and that there is no political interference where none is required. <BR /> <BR />I was told that the reason that Project Eagle was so different — why Northern Ireland was so different from London, Dublin or anywhere else in NAMA's portfolio — is plain and simple: whether it was east Belfast or west Belfast, you could not sell a house without a politician at the table. That is the crux of the matter: political interference in every deal. This should have been simply about getting good value for money for the Irish taxpayer through sales in Northern Ireland that met the market value. As it was, friends were at the table.”
“Sammy Wilson described Frank Cushnahan as a "friend" who did "great work", which is the crux of the problem with the NAMA process: cronyism in Northern Ireland politics. This is not the first time that we have seen it. We have seen issues before with property deals. I remember the Seymour Sweeney case, when someone who said that he was "aware" of the individual turned out to be his good friend. Now we hear of another good friend doing "great work", potentially on behalf of the DUP. We have to move away from that cronyism. We need transparency and accountability. Being a good friend is not enough to deliver effectively for the people of Northern Ireland, and we need to challenge that.”
“We are seeing a further example, as we saw with the use of the royal prerogative and the major spending decisions taken over the summer recess, of a First Minister and deputy First Minister who wish to act without accountability to or challenge from the House. <BR /> <BR />The Comptroller and Auditor General's report was clear about the difference with Project Eagle. Why was it different from sales in Dublin and London? The answer is plain and simple: the political considerations specific to the Northern Ireland aspects. That is what we have a duty to investigate — this House, the Dáil and collectively North/South. What were those political considerations? I will throw out one as a possibility.”
“It is relatively simple in its context. Separate to that, though, is the political side, and that is where we need to ensure that our Executive, the Government in the South and the NAMA board are held to account. That is our role, that is why we are here and it must be done. Otherwise, we fail in our duty. <BR /> <BR />Today we have a call for a statement from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and it is disappointing that we cannot even get them to the Chamber to address the debate. I welcome the Finance Minister's attendance and his responding to the debate, but I would like to have seen the First Minister and deputy First Minister.”
“There are two aspects to the NAMA scandal: the criminal is whether there has been corruption; the political is what role politicians played in what appears to be a poor return, particularly for the Irish taxpayer. The distinction is simple, and anyone who purports not to understand the distinction is clearly deflecting from their party's involvement in the political aspect. The criminal aspect will, to a large extent, take care of itself. I have full confidence in the National Crime Agency and an Garda Síochána working together to establish why there was an offshore bank account containing £7 million, which seems to be fairly well established, whether bin bags full of cash were passed over by so-called handlers and, if so, who those people were, what their role was and what criminality was conducted. That will take care of itself.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report is clear that one of the issues with Project Eagle was political considerations. As I understand it, the Member's amendment is effectively just leaving it to the criminal investigations. Does he not accept that we need political investigation into the issue, with North/South cooperation and full buy-in from all parties?”
“— but we must work together and agree our asks first.”
“We go to the Government and say that we want to give back less but take more. Whilst it is not a bad place to start — it is not a bad ask, and I do not think that anyone here would disagree with our paying less in and getting more back — I suspect that we have to anticipate the possibility that the British Government will not be predisposed to that argument. <BR /> <BR />We do and can work together to make a coherent argument for why Northern Ireland should be made a special case. It was done for corporation tax and for air passenger duty, and I think that we can do it for the EU referendum —”
“That is excellent and something that we can agree to and sign up to, but the same document calls for Northern Ireland to be an enterprise zone, with the deregulation of planning. In general, planning functions are there to protect our environment. Do we want to protect, or do we want to deregulate? The two rarely go hand in hand. In fact, the document calls explicitly for the protection of biodiversity but also for the scrapping of fishing quotas, which are designed precisely to protect our biodiversity. <BR /> <BR />In Northern Ireland, we have had the debate about corporation tax. The Green Party and I have long stood as opponents of the proposed reduction. There are further proposals to reduce taxation in this document, but, at the same time, we call for more for Northern Ireland.”
“It calls on us to endorse an Ulster Unionist position, not an agreed cross-party position. If it is a proposal for discussion, yes, absolutely — many Members said that it was welcome in that regard — but I think that seeking endorsement at this stage is taking us a bit far. <BR /> <BR />I will address some of the aspects that I have difficulty with. I think that we will get cross-party consensus on securing maximum funding for Northern Ireland from existing EU funds and that type of issue. Then, however, there are some genuine policy decisions that we would have to make post-Brexit, if it were to happen. How do we want to address the issue of environmental protection? I am heartened by the document's call for the continued protection of our natural environment and biodiversity.”
“For those who like to view the world in such terms, it is a unionist constituency, with four unionist and no nationalist MLAs, yet a majority voted to remain. So, the statistic does not stack up under any proper scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />The motion asks us to envisage a Northern Ireland outside the EU. Let us address that. If we are to leave, how best can we mitigate the damage, as I see it, that it would do to Northern Ireland? It is important that we work together, and I know that the proposer of the motion has been constructive in cross-party discussions on how we can act together and get an agreed platform on how we should best act in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why, to some extent, it may be a question of phrasing that makes the motion a bit disappointing.”
“The Green Party campaigned for the UK to remain part of the EU, and it is unsurprising that that continues to be our position. Having seen a majority vote in Northern Ireland to remain, we continue to uphold that position and to seek to represent those who wish to remain. Northern Ireland did not vote to leave; Northern Ireland does not want to leave; and Northern Ireland would be significantly disadvantaged if we did eventually exit the European Union. <BR /> <BR />I listened to the debate and heard the statistic about 85% of unionism. I query that and I query continually breaking down this society into unionism versus nationalism — "green and orange", as it is often put, although there are shades of green. I look at my constituency.”
“I thank the Minister for his explanations so far. We heard from Mrs Little Pengelly about the impact that this could have on the community and voluntary sector in its ability to plan, the amount of time that it will spend on applying for funding on an annual basis and the inefficiency of that; 20% of its time will be spent on applying for the next year rather than reducing that over a longer term. When the Minister describes this as the best way forward, for whom is it the best way forward?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. We had a debate in the Chamber yesterday about the need to invest in housing. My concern is that such a reclassification could inflict serious damage on our ability to invest, particularly in social housing. From his discussions with the Communities Minister, can the Minister tell us what contingency plans they hope to put in place?”
“We have to make sure that people who want to stay in their homes can stay in their homes and do not have to move because of damp, or because poor quality is affecting their health, or because they cannot afford to heat energy-inefficient homes. <BR /> <BR />If we do that, the importance of the scheme that we use to prioritise becomes less important. Get the first part right and the second part almost takes care of itself.”
“<BR /> <BR />We need to ensure, yes, that we put people in appropriate housing and assess their personal need and circumstances to ensure that we get that right, but the priority should be housing need, not personal circumstances. If we get back to that principle, we can address some of the issues that have been raised. However, the reality is that if there are not enough houses, there are not enough solutions. That has to be where we start: we have to build more social housing and invest in the social housing that we have to make sure that it is up to an adequate standard and that it accommodates lifelong living.”