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 8 of 28.
“When it comes to the pace of progress in our Assembly and our political processes, I generally use the phrase that I am proud that we have come as far as we have but frustrated that we are not going further, faster. That is certainly how I feel about the Bill. I commend the sponsor for bringing it forward, for taking on — I know the difficulty of this through my experience — the challenge and for tackling something that most people said we in the Assembly, never mind an individual Member, could not do because we did not have the power. It is testament to Mr McCallister that he sought to bring forward the Bill. He has worked hard to get agreement on it, and, whilst he has not got everything that he would have liked, it is fair to say that the skeleton of the original proposal is intact.”
“On his point about new builds, what assurance can the Minister give me that integrated schools will not be excluded from new-build programmes that are not specifically funded by Fresh Start money?”
“As I said, my fear is that this Bill and the shared education agenda are being driven by those who do not wish to see integration and are looking for a way to maintain segregation with a new name that sounds like "integration" but is not and potentially never will be.”
“My concern, and I raised this point, is that it was made clear with this agenda that a single shared school will not get the resources. So, in that scenario, St Columbanus' College would lose out, as would a single integrated school. We should be putting in resources where there is an opportunity to integrate two schools; instead, we are putting in resources to keep them separate. They will be sharing facilities but not experiences. That is where my concern lies. <BR /> <BR />I make a final plea to the House to include integrated education in the Bill to show that it is still part of the vision for education in Northern Ireland, that it is the way forward and that we want to live up to the obligations of the Order to encourage and facilitate integrated education.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Obviously, it is a school in my constituency. As he knows, I have supported their campaign for a new school building, and I have always been keen to attend the prize day. They have brought together children of both religions, other religions and no religion under one roof. That is a step in the right direction. However, Mass still takes place as part of the Assembly, so it has a way to go to be more inclusive. Whilst this is a step in the right direction for our education system, I do not see it as the end point, which may be where I differ from some in the House. <BR /> <BR />There is a question of resources. It is clear, with the shared education agenda, that resources will follow.”
“This is an agenda for shared education, not integrated. It is not a step in the direction of integrated. It is an alternative, and I see it as a further barrier to integrated. <BR /> <BR />I have said all along that the solution to our fall in classroom numbers was, in many cases, to merge schools and create a single school where children of both faiths, others and none are educated together with the same uniform, the same ethos and the same principal. The seeming intention of the House to oppose inclusion of consideration of integrated education within the contexts outlined in the Bill is regrettable and a further indication —”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. We had this debate at length. In settling on a final form of words, the intent will be clear. It is my understanding that, when legislation is being interpreted, the context can be looked at. Indeed, the words that we use here will be used to help interpret it. There were amendments that I preferred that were not passed at Consideration Stage. I hate this phrase, but we are where we are. We will resolve this issue today, and the Bill will be no worse for that. <BR /> <BR />On amendment Nos 8, 10, which is my own, and 11, I was told that I should be reassured and not concerned about shared education somehow being a further barrier to what I see as genuine integration. I see the opposition to these amendments as some indication that my instincts were correct.”
“First, I apologise to the Members whose contributions I did not get to hear. Other business that I had overran. I like to be in from the start of debates, but, unfortunately, that was not possible today. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 2 and 3 come to the issue of how we include reference to the two main denominations in Northern Ireland and include others of different faith and none. We grappled with this issue at Consideration Stage, and a number of different proposals were put forward. We have two here today. I fear that, in almost seeking to come to a consensus, we are coming out with the least best option. However, should amendment Nos 2 and 3 not be passed, what will be clear to anyone interpreting this legislation is the intent. It is important to debate language when we are producing legislation.”
“Saying that a behind-closed-doors deal with little public scrutiny of the negotiations or certainly little public view of them should be the template for a better way forward, rather than a free, fair, open and transparent vote on detail in the Assembly, I find bizarre. You should oppose the amendments and the legislation if you think that the detail of them is the wrong way forward. That is fine, but saying that a deal done behind closed doors is a better way forward than one done through full, transparent and fair debate in the Assembly is regrettable.”
“However, that measure, along with this proposal, would have helped to move us towards good offering governance. <BR /> <BR />I turn to Sinn Féin's blanket opposition to all the amendments and the Bill at large. They say simply that 'A Fresh Start' was the agreement. I was not a party to 'A Fresh Start'. Although many Members' parties may have been involved, many were not themselves a party to 'A Fresh Start'. It is right that, in full transparency and in full public view, the Assembly should decide how we reform the institutions. I have often argued that, given that the institutions were created as a result of a referendum — a public vote — the public should have much more say.”
“We talk about moving on and normalisation, and treating the position of Justice Minister like any other Minister is another step in doing that. If a party is capable of holding the position of Minister of Education or of taking up the role of Finance Minister or of First Minister and deputy First Minister, I see no reason why we should make an exception for the Minister of Justice. <BR /> <BR />A lot has been said about the need to agree a Programme for Government before running d'Hondt. The one point I will reiterate is the need for collective responsibility in government in Northern Ireland. I have made that point time and time again. Unfortunately, Mr McCallister's proposal to make the Executive a single legal entity was rejected.”
“The spectre of Gerry Kelly being Justice Minister was often brought up — not by me, Mr Kelly, but by others. It was deemed equally unacceptable that the DUP should hold the post of Justice Minister. That mechanism was created to continue the sectarian attitudes of keeping the other out. Surely these institutions, when they were created, were about moving on from that. <BR /> <BR />I find it ironic that it is Alliance that holds that position. That is not even to criticise, because, if we go back to 2010, we see that it was a case of it taking the position or there was the potential that the institutions would collapse. I do not say that as an attack; it is simply an observation that, in doing that, we give justification to the argument that we must keep "them uns" out. It is time to move on.”
“I move on to amendment No 26. I want to speak on the appointment of Ministers and about bringing the Minister of Justice into d'Hondt. I think that my first contribution to the Assembly was when we debated the appointment of the Justice Minister. I said then — I hold to it now — that the current mechanism for appointing a Justice Minister effectively propped up a sectarian system. That was the whole rationale in 2010 for separating the Justice Minister from the others. I have no loyalty to d'Hondt: if we want to debate how we appoint Ministers on the whole, that is fine, but making special provision for the Justice Minister was purely and simply about one thing. It was about saying, "We have to keep them uns out of Justice". I do not know whether that was the DUP saying, "We have to keep Sinn Féin out of Justice".”
“I hope that they will accept my explanation. Sinn Féin has made its position clear on all the amendments, and I will come to that presently. I call on Members to support this and to make Ministers subject to some accountability for how they conduct themselves.”
“That ill serves Ministers, the public and these institutions in terms of respect as we go forward. <BR /> <BR />Whilst I respect the Member and the role that he played on the Standards and Privileges Committee — he was a very strong, fair and conscientious Chair — with all due respect, his argument is a smokescreen to hide the fact that the DUP and Sinn Féin have held the positions of First Minister and deputy First Minister since 2007. They have been the two largest parties, and there has been no desire or willingness to have their Ministers held up to the code of conduct, public scrutiny, transparency and independent investigation. That needs to be put right. As I say, it is part of the good governance of the Assembly and part of moving forward on good governance. I call on Members, including Members opposite, to support the amendment.”
“You should not have to have the means. <BR /> <BR />Ministers and the Assembly have been brought into disrepute. Ministers have been ill served, and the public have been ill served. When Arlene Foster was Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, for example, it was alleged that she had breached the code by not declaring that her husband owned land in an area licensed for fracking. I was close to that one. The public were ill served because that was never independently investigated. She said that she had not breached the code, and we were expected to take her word for it. Equally, the Minister was ill served because she did not have the opportunity to have an independent investigator declare that she had made no breach. It was left up in the air, left undetermined and left to the court of public opinion and to trial by media.”
“I thank the Member again. In this case, I would distinguish between legislation in the main body of the Bill and the mechanism that Mr McCallister has devised to get around issues that are not within the competence of the Assembly. There is a different nature to the schedules, and it is clear that the intent of the motion is about agreeing a principle. I am not making a point about Second Stage as opposed to Further Consideration Stage; it is about the Assembly stating its intent that it wants independent investigation. I accept the Member making a distinction with the code of conduct. If we were to agree that, the matter could be resolved to the Member's and my satisfaction if he were minded to support independent investigation of the code of conduct. I do not accept that legal recourse is sufficient.”
“If the Member is saying that he is agreed in principle to an independent investigation of the code of conduct, articulates that and votes on that basis, AERC, in acting on this, can look not just at the content of the amendment but at the content of the debate.”
“If the Member feels so compelled, and if there were a genuine will by the party opposite to correct that anomaly and open the code of conduct to full public scrutiny and a complaints procedure, we could agree the amendment because it is simply a compulsion on AERC to table an Assembly motion. The amendment does not give the detail; it agrees a principle and allows some flexibility.”
“I will give way to the Member if I have said anything different in the past, but that has been my only criticism. I made those points during the Committee's review of the code of conduct and was voted down by other parties. I accept that and move on. <BR /> <BR />The process that I envisage is similar. The Member is right that the detail is not in the amendment, nor is it intended to be there or in much of what is proposed in the schedules. It is about agreeing principles, and the principle that I ask the Assembly to agree today is that Ministers should be held to a code of conduct. The Member makes the distinction between the ministerial code and the code of conduct. Of course, the code of conduct is contained within the ministerial code.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, but I am somewhat confused by it. The only thing that I have been critical of is the scope of the code of conduct, in that it applies to MLAs only in their role as an MLA. It is quite strictly defined. An all too common defence is, "Well, even though I was in the Building and in my MLA office, I was at a party meeting and not acting as an MLA." That seems to be a reasonable defence to make a breach inadmissible, and I have criticised that. The scope should extend to all political acts. It is reasonable to assume that an MLA is being an MLA when he attends a political rally or party meeting. It is reasonable that the public expect MLAs to adhere to the code of conduct. The process itself is one that I support.”
“Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland, that has not taken place: no Minister has been disciplined by their party leader, and neither the ministerial code nor the code of conduct has been upheld. <BR /> <BR />At previous stages of the Bill and in other debates, I have talked about how we need to move beyond the institutions simply surviving to their producing good governance. This is another opportunity to show that we are serious about that, but I fear that it will be wasted.”
“I will not speak to all the amendments. Rather, I will focus on amendment Nos 12 and 22 on the ministerial code; amendment No 26 on the appointment of Ministers; and amendment No 24 on agreeing a Programme for Government. <BR /> <BR />It was necessary to table amendment Nos 12 and 22 in my name and that of Ms Claire Sugden to correct an anomaly that has existed for as long as these institutions have been up and running: MLAs are held to a ministerial code that is independently investigated when breaches are alleged, with published reports and full transparency around that process, but complaints against Ministers cannot be investigated in such a way. There is no transparency. Indeed, there is not even a procedure for dealing with complaints other than to appeal to the particular party leader to rein in that Minister.”
“So why ask our small businesses to go through those hoops? Meet your commitments, Minister. Whilst I will not call on the Minister to go today because, as I said, it was this Minister and his predecessor, Mrs Foster, who have collective responsibility for this shambles, I call for him to apologise for the mess that he has brought to the Chamber.”
“This is about sustainable energy, and we need sustainable funding. <BR /> <BR />Alternatively, the Minister will have to compensate those companies. It will likely take the form of legal proceedings; that was clear. Indeed, I asked that question of the officials when they came to the Committee, and they accepted that legal proceedings were likely.”
“Whilst the Minister might point to "costly renewables", as he put it, just remember how costly the gas industry has been in terms of subsidies for gas to the west, for the gas network and for the boiler replacement scheme. It is not all about renewables. We subsidise energy because it is part of our infrastructure, and renewables are a key part of that. <BR /> <BR />I call on the Minister to withdraw his proposal, meet the commitment and continue the scheme until, at least, 31 March. I call for a deep, exhaustive review of the scheme, assuming there is the capacity to do so, and for it to come back. Absolutely, there are flaws in how the scheme has been run, but its principles are right. The technology is right. Those businesses deserve to be supported. That review must take place, and the scheme must be reinstated in a sustainable way.”
“I maintain that it has been badly managed and we should not have this degree of overspend. However, a commitment would be to say, "We have made a commitment to 31 March, and we will fund those schemes and see out the renewable heat incentive scheme. We will spend the extra money in renewables. Thank you for the £25 million from the UK Government, but we will invest Northern Ireland money in renewables". <BR /> <BR />Thirty million pounds is a lot of money. It was also a lot of money when we committed £32·5 million to gas infrastructure to bring gas to the west. It is not unheard of that we will invest such sums in energy infrastructure.”
“He could adhere to his commitments and those of his predecessor to the renewables industry and say, "No. There are two sides to the argument, but I will stand with one side, which is that renewables are the way forward for our heat and electricity production and the way forward for creating jobs and backing a growing industry in this society". He has exposed the lack of commitment. <BR /> <BR />All along, I have this said about the RHI scheme: it was funded by the UK Government. It was not, in itself, a case of the Executive showing commitment; it was simply a case of saying, "Well, if there is free money, then, yes, we will take it". A commitment would be the Executive saying, "This scheme has been successful. This scheme has overreached the demand".”
“One option for the Minister would have been to put a date on the statutory rule, so that we could debate that date. If it was rejected, he could come back with an alternative proposal; indeed, he still has that option, should this be rejected today. There are options; there is a choice. I certainly cannot choose the option being presented by the Minister. <BR /> <BR />Further, the Minister exposed his and, I suspect, the Executive's ambivalence in supporting renewables. He said, "Well, some people think we support renewables too much, and some people think that we do not support them enough. So we have supported them a bit. If we close this now, isn't that meeting everybody in the middle?". That is one way to look at it. However, the Minister could show leadership.”
“We then had a further announcement that said, "Well, we'll extend it for two weeks". I wonder whether it was always the plan to give the worst-case scenario and then say, "It's OK; we will give you two weeks and hope that that will dissipate some of your anger, frustration and annoyance". It is too late for that. Given the way people have been treated, I do not think any resolution will quell the disquiet. The commitment was given that the tariffs would be in place until 31 March, and people had a reasonable expectation that that was what would happen. <BR /> <BR />The Minister also tells us that, if we vote no today, there is no other option. When I am told that there is no other option, I will find that other option. There are always alternatives; there are always options.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is worrying that the Department can manage only one priority with this scheme, but there are many priorities coming forward. There is the review of the strategic energy framework as well as the need to resolve the issue of the renewables obligation certificates and to work out what we do when they come to an end. There is the energy Bill that did not come forward in this mandate but is expected in the next. Does the Department have the capacity to deal with those issues effectively? Does it have the capacity to deal with them competently? That is a question that we are perfectly entitled to ask. <BR /> <BR />The announcement was made late on a Friday — it was early on a Friday evening, late in the afternoon — that the scheme would close with immediate effect.”
“I asked these questions: "Why is it continuing to operate there and not here? What did they do differently? Why is their scheme sustainable and ours unsustainable?". I was told, "They had this system whereby, if demand went up, they reduced the tariffs to manage demand and keep it sustainable". I asked, "Why did we not do that? It seems sensible". I was told, "Our priority was to introduce the domestic scheme". This Department can cope with only one priority. Where is the capacity? Where was the management from the then Minister, Mrs Foster, to meet the workload of the Department with the resources that were required? That model would have saved our scheme and prevented the £30 million overspend, and we would not be in the crisis we are in today.”
“<BR /> <BR />The scheme was announced by Arlene Foster in 2012, and we were told then that it was a £25 million investment. That was money that was coming directly from the Westminster Government at no cost to our block grant. All we had to do in Northern Ireland was effectively administer a scheme that had been established and was being funded by the Westminster Government. We simply had to administer it. Despite that, we still managed to have, in a £25 million scheme, a £30 million overspend. That is a shambles. It is serious financial mismanagement. I questioned the officials in Committee and asked when the decision was made and why we did not follow the model that will continue in the rest of the UK. We will be the only part of the UK not to have a renewable heat incentive.”
“People have retrained because of the commitment from government — I go back to the word "commitment" because that is what was given — to the sector, to those workers and, indeed, to those in education who saw the future in renewables and invested their time and energy in retraining to take part in the industry. Now that commitment is being withdrawn, and we are asked to support that withdrawal here today. <BR /> <BR />The RHI was about ending our dependence on fossil fuels, which are polluting and depleting and have ever-fluctuating costs. We were told in Committee, "It is OK to close this now. We have overreached our target for 4% in 2015". That again ignores the commitment that was made to reach a 10% renewable heat target by 2020.”
“The Member is absolutely right. Many have retrained, and the South Eastern Regional College's Ards campus focuses on many of the skills needed to work in the sector.”
“It is the one industry whose needs Northern Ireland has the skills and tools to meet. We in Northern Ireland are steeped in engineering and manufacturing.”
“He gave a commitment to businesses in Northern Ireland that there would be no early closure of the scheme here. Then, the DECC Minister stepped in and said, "Yes, you will", the Minister buckled and the scheme is to close early. <BR /> <BR />We had another commitment to a reduction in RHI tariffs. That was acceptable, and there was no huge outcry about it. He said that the new tariffs would be in place until 31 March. We have had a rollback on that commitment, too. We have to wonder whether, when this Minister makes a commitment to the renewables industry, we should take heed of it at all. <BR /> <BR />It is almost as if we were coming down with jobs in Northern Ireland and could, therefore, afford to play fast and loose with the one industry that grew throughout the recession.”
“In front of us today is the latest in a list of renewable energy failures by this Department and successive Enterprise, Trade and Investment Ministers. <BR /> <BR />First, in 2014, we had the loss of a £1 billion offshore wind development under the previous Minister, Arlene Foster. That would have produced 400MW of renewable energy. It was only for Northern Ireland, but it was bigger than anything proposed across the rest of the UK. We lost that because the then Minister and her Department did not fight to save it, and we accepted that that scheme, that investment and those jobs were lost. <BR /> <BR />Then, we had a new Minister who was going to stand up for the renewable energy industry. When DECC introduced changes to the renewables obligation certificate, our Minister said, "No, we will not have those changes in Northern Ireland".”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the spike was entirely predictable, which means that it is worse than nothing happening from November? Every time there was a tariff reduction in GB, there was a spike; why would we anticipate anything different here?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. When Arlene Foster first announced the scheme in 2012, she described it as a £25 million scheme. That suggests to me that there was always a cap and that this was not news.”
“When the original consideration on the digression model took place, the Department stated to the Committee that it had other priorities and the domestic scheme was the priority. That suggests that it cannot manage two priorities.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Is that not exactly what the Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage are for? They are for those of us who are not in the Government to bring forward amendments to legislation. Otherwise, we might as well do everything by accelerated passage.”
“I question the SDLP's position. In the DUP and the SDLP, there are those who support the principle of the amendments. I call on those parties not just to trust women but to trust their Members to vote without the Whip and with freedom of conscience. We have this opportunity to make real change, and I really do not want to see it wasted.”
“I fear that that is simply a delaying tactic to keep the electorate guessing.”
“Our laws in Northern Ireland should be compassionate and meet the minimum requirements of international human rights standards. <BR /> <BR />It is well known that there are those in this House who have one opinion when their party may have another. There was a lot of discussion about whether there would be a petition of concern from the DUP. I acknowledge that it has made a big step by not petitioning this issue and in considering exploring it further through the working group. I hope that, if that option is chosen, it will be a genuine exploration of the issue and that we will see proposals for change come out of it. However, I fear, and I regret, that the decision to delay its report until after the election is a strategic one. We have had consultation, and the evidence is in.”
“If you do not accept the Millward Brown poll, there is the current 'Belfast Telegraph' poll, which, the last time I looked, was at 80% in favour of change. I do not think that you could accuse the readership of the 'Belfast Telegraph' of being radical or in any way outwith public opinion. Many would see it, on the whole, as a conservative readership, but those who are voting in that poll are voting for change. <BR /> <BR />I believe that it is time we trusted women to make a choice, and that is all that is being proposed; that we give women, in these limited circumstances, a choice. Some would like to go further, but the proposal this evening is that, in those limited circumstances, we give a choice. It is time that we listened to women, trusted women and acted for women.”
“They do so knowing full well that no draft of these amendments will satisfy them and that they will not legislate for women who face fatal foetal abnormality or are the victim of sexual crime. In no circumstances will any draft of amendments be supported by some Members. I am disappointed; that is regrettable. <BR /> <BR />We have seen the court ruling. We have seen opinion polls. We had the consultation from the Minister. We have seen the evidence that came forward from that. The evidence seemed to be overwhelming in the case of fatal foetal abnormality, but we have not chosen to follow it. Opinion polls have shown a public desire for change. No opinion poll can be perfect, but I have yet to see an opinion poll that suggests that the public in Northern Ireland do not want change.”
“I have spoken to some of you and I have been clear that I want those of us who support change to get behind an agreed amendment. For that reason, I do not propose to move my own amendments, but to support the amendment of Stewart Dickson and Trevor Lunn in relation to fatal foetal abnormality and the amendment of Anna Lo in relation to sexual crime. <BR /> <BR />As I pointed out to Mr Allister, we can, if we make the choice, have a debate at Further Consideration Stage, or a discussion between now and Further Consideration Stage, about an agreed wording if the amendments proposed this evening are not acceptable. However, I think it is clear that that is very much a side issue for those who chose to pick holes.”
“In the future, when it campaigns for human rights and for a bill of rights in Northern Ireland, people will question what that bill of rights will look like. Will it afford us the international human rights standards to which we should adhere or will it be something less? To oppose these amendments is to suggest that, in Northern Ireland, we should have something less. <BR /> <BR />I will make specific reference to the amendments.”
“The amendments proposed here are about putting in place the minimum changes that are required to bring our law within the international human rights standard. The proposal is to give women in exceptional circumstances — cases of fatal foetal abnormality or sexual crime — a choice. The proposal is simply to enshrine in our law the minimum required to uphold a woman's human rights. <BR /> <BR />I am disappointed that a party or parties in this House that have campaigned for a bill of rights and to defend the Human Rights Act say on this issue of human rights, "No. This is one human right that we do not wish to extend to Northern Ireland. This is a woman's right that we do not wish to uphold". I find that disappointing, and I question that party. I make particular reference to the SDLP.”