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 9 of 28.
“My concern is that, tonight, we may make a decision that will determine a similar outcome for many more women because, whilst we have given sympathy to Sarah and empathised with her, we have not chosen to make a positive change to ensure that other women do not have to go through the experience that Sarah went through. That is what she has asked of us, but it appears from the choices of many in the Chamber tonight that we are going to say to Sarah, "No. We find the circumstances as they currently exist in Northern Ireland acceptable, and we will not make a change". I think that that is a shame and an opportunity wasted. <BR /> <BR />A court has ruled that the law in Northern Ireland denies women their human rights as enshrined through international law.”
“I quote from the letter which, I believe, she has written to all of us:”
“Sarah has made it a safer space for us all to have this conversation because people have empathy with her and, therefore, for the many other women who find themselves in similar circumstances. <BR /> <BR />Sarah has publicly expressed that she wanted to have a baby and that the diagnosis of anencephaly was devastating to her. I am delighted to say — she has met each of the parties here and Members will know this — that, since first telling her story, she has had a pregnancy that went to term and has a healthy baby boy. I am delighted for her, but she lives in the knowledge that, in any future pregnancy, there is a risk of a similar diagnosis. As she outlined, her grandmother went through a similar situation. She outlined to us her experience and what her circumstances were.”
“They may pay up to £2,000 to access that treatment, and of course there are those who cannot afford that option, who have no choice — not even this regrettable choice. <BR /> <BR />Members are well aware of the story of Sarah Ewart, who bravely came forward to tell her story, and who put a face and a human dimension to the statistics that I have heard for many years. I suppose, she put a name and a story to the case study and really gave life to this issue. I think she really did change the landscape in Northern Ireland. I have met with her on a couple of occasions now, and I have said that to her. I commend her for what she has done. I do not think we would even be having this debate, were it not for her coming forward.”
“<BR /> <BR />Every week, approximately 20 women from Northern Ireland will travel to Great Britain for an abortion. The circumstances of each of those women will, of course, vary. But, they will include those who have received the devastating news of a fatal foetal abnormality, and they will include those who have been the victims of a sexual crime, including rape. Our current laws compound the trauma for many of those women by denying them access to healthcare locally. Those who have the means to travel, potentially do so alone; potentially get into debt to acquire those means; and will receive their treatment in a strange place, away from their friends, away from their family, potentially away from their other children, because our laws choose to deny them that treatment here.”
“We are debating the proposal to provide exceptions, in exceptional circumstances, to our current law on abortion. There has been some discussion about whether or not this Bill is the appropriate place to have this debate, and whether doing it through amendments is an appropriate mechanism. I would be much happier having this as part of a health debate. This is a health issue, and that is how it should be treated, but, unfortunately, the law on abortion is one of criminal justice. The threat of life imprisonment is in place should someone procure an abortion except in cases where the mother's life is at risk. Of course, we know that, even in those very exceptional cases, it can be hard to get a medical practitioner to take that risk, unless they are absolutely certain that the mother's health is at risk.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I would like to understand whether the Member is saying that he is sympathetic to Mr Dickson's amendment but feels that it is badly drafted, in which case we could potentially not move it and bring it back amended at Further Consideration Stage. Or is he saying that he is opposed to it, and, if that is the case, surely its detail is irrelevant as the Member has made up his mind?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He asked why these amendments have come forward in this way to this Bill. The background is that the Minister held a public consultation and, particularly around the issue of fatal foetal abnormality, polls suggested that there was considerable public support. My understanding — the Minister can correct me because I do not speak for him — is that, while he would have liked to bring the FFA issue forward in the Bill, he could not get that through the Executive. That is why we are here now.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate his point about the current law being about the health and well-being of the woman. Does he find it acceptable that, in the case of something like anencephaly, we have to wait until the mother's life is at immediate risk and that, when there is a likelihood of risk to the women's life, we cannot act in Northern Ireland?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. She seems to be outlining why she believes the 1967 Act is wrong. I do not believe that that is what we should be debating but, to take on her point, I accept that she believes the law to be wrong. Does she believe that the women who chose to have abortions were wrong?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The point was made that we should listen to the experts. Whilst it is right that we consult experts on medical advice on fatal foetal abnormality, surely the expert in the choice of whether to have a termination is the woman herself.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Would he be open to a further amendment should we get there at Further Consideration Stage that would add that no judgement should be communicated to the woman, as exists in England? If a clinician chooses not to carry out a termination, he or she will not communicate that directly to the woman but that alternative provision will be sought.”
“I hope that, most likely in a future mandate, we will get a consensus that it is about all animals and all types of cruelty by all peoples, and that that has to include fox hunting, which can no longer be justified in our society. I welcome this step forward today and look forward to amendment No 52 being passed by the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />I commend the Minister — it is right to do so — but also those campaigners, whether it was those in the Justice for Cody campaign, or Northern Ireland Says No To Animal Cruelty, the Animal Rights Action Network (ARAN), the League Against Cruel Sports, or, indeed, as has been mentioned, the rehoming charities, including the Assisi animal sanctuary in my constituency. In the relatively short period since the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 was enacted, we are reforming it and increasing penalties, and it is because of those campaigns and because of that grass-roots action that we are here today, speaking to amendment No 52. <BR /> <BR />It is a step forward that we seem to have a consensus in the House that animal cruelty is wrong.”
“In particular, there was the Justice for Cody campaign, which came about as a result of a particular act of cruelty on a poor dog. The Agnew family — no relations — were drawn into a campaign that was not of their own making but was the result of the huge public support that came in behind them. They raised vast sums of money, and I was able to host them as they presented a cheque to Guide Dogs to train a guide dog in Cody's honour; indeed, the dog was named after Cody. That was the beginning of organising on animal cruelty in Northern Ireland to a level that I had never seen before.”
“I wish to speak particularly on amendment No 52, not because I see it as more important than the other issues but because it is an area of work that I have campaigned on for many years. I welcome the Minister's amendment to provide for increased sentencing and, indeed, the ability to appeal sentences handed down for animal cruelty offences. I am encouraged by the consensus that there seems to be on animal cruelty and the passion with which some Members spoke of their abhorrence of animal cruelty. Unfortunately, that has not always been the case, but I welcome it today. <BR /> <BR />We have seen a change. I campaigned on animal welfare issues long before entering this Chamber. There was a small coterie of us in Northern Ireland, and a number of things happened to change that.”
“I want to speak primarily on amendment No 52, but I will touch briefly on Mr Frew's amendment and domestic violence. I will keep it brief, because he stated that he does not intend to move it. I commend the Member for his work, and, indeed, further to his comments, I commend Dolores Kelly for her work around the issue of domestic violence. It is a horrendous crime. Like Mr Frew, I could share a number of stories — some, unfortunately, in my own family. I will not do that, because I do not have permission from those people to do so, but I appreciate the efforts that he has made in bringing these amendments and, indeed, the work that the Minister is doing in consulting on how best we can improve the legislation to get justice in cases of domestic violence, but also, hopefully, working collectively to prevent domestic violence.”
“It is the higher skilled who leave; the brain drain, as it is referred to, is the problem. I see nothing in amendment No14 to address that. It would only add to the problem by saying to graduates and the skilled, "There are other countries and other employers providing better pay and conditions. Chase those jobs, because the jobs are not here in Northern Ireland." For those reasons, I will oppose amendment No14.”
“Those are some of the things that we can do to boost employment. It starts with looking after your employees. <BR /> <BR />Mr McCrea talked about emigration. One way to stop a person leaving is to pay them well. It is very rarely the low-skilled worker who leaves; it is usually the educated and those with university degrees. It is not because there are not jobs here; it is because there are not jobs with good pay and conditions, or at least such jobs are not in sufficient number. It is normally those with degrees or master's degrees and those who have the family support to travel and take opportunities abroad in the first place who leave. It is not the low-skilled and low-paid workers who leave: unfortunately, they stick around, left with the zero-hours contracts, which, in some cases, are their only options.”
“<BR /> <BR />If we look at the evidence, skills have been mentioned. I do not think that anyone will disagree with that, so I make the point that getting a well-trained workforce is one of the best things that we can do. The other evidence is on the living wage and shows that the better you treat an employee the more you get from them. The living wage is one example of that. The Oxford Economics report showed that if we paid a true living wage — not the Chancellor's proposed increased minimum wage — net employment in Northern Ireland would go up. When you pay people at the lower end of the labour market more, they spend more in the local economy, and there is a greater multiplier effect. The evidence also shows that a worker who is valued by their employer has higher productivity.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Maybe we are interpreting differently what Mr McCrea presented. I have not read the document, but it seems to me that the time taken for an employee to get to the optimum level of productivity would not include the training period. I do not see that as being the same as the training period; it is about experience and growing in a role not about being productive and contributing. So, I would not equate it with a training period. That is not how I interpreted what Mr McCrea said, although he is not here to answer. <BR /> <BR />Mr McCrea rightly asked, "If not this, then what?". As I said, I do not feel that he provided a compelling argument for how his amendment will create employment. It gives more flexibility to the employer but fewer rights and less security to the employee.”
“He said that it gives more power to employers, and so that can only be a good thing. That is not necessarily a good thing. There should be a balance between the employer and employee in terms of rights and roles. Mr McCrea talked about the different scenarios and how long it takes an employee to get up to the optimum level of working. His worst-case scenario, where somebody was coming from unemployment and had not worked in that particular role before, was that it would take 50 weeks to get to the optimum level. I do not see the rationale for saying, "Well, you should have another year, then, in which you can sack that person at will". A year is more than sufficient, as Mr Flanagan pointed out. We give six-month probationary periods. Those time frames are reasonable.”
“The proposal to require employers to look at, monitor and report on the issue is one of the ways in which we could get the data. We need to tackle the issue. There is an assumption among many that gender inequality issues have somehow been resolved and that our employment laws etc provide sufficient protection. The evidence is that we still have a gender pay gap. We should be debating how we tackle that issue. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 14 concerns the two-year qualifying period. Mr McCrea said a lot of things that were hard to disagree with, such as wanting to create more jobs and stop emigration. We are back in the situation where more people are leaving Northern Ireland than are coming to live here. That is regrettable. However, I did not hear how his proposal addresses that issue.”
“I was fortunate that, when business was up, I got extra hours, which helped fund me throughout the rest of the year. My employer made that minimum commitment to me. They gave me those minimum rights of holiday pay and breaks etc when I was working. If we banned zero-hour contracts today, as some fear, I do not see any reason why low-hour contracts cannot still be a flexible mechanism that give employees some of the basic rights that they should be entitled to. <BR /> <BR />The issue of the gender pay gap has been debated and discussed. I commend the Members for bringing it forward and bringing it to light. As has been clear in the debate, we have the evidence that there is a gender pay gap. We, perhaps, do not have sufficient evidence as to why that is.”
“The point has been made that zero-hour contracts work for some people. Ms Sugden gave her own example, but she qualified it — and I am happy to give way if I misrepresent her — by saying that she was under pressure, and, because her particular employer happened to provide a lot of work, that worked for her. I was a student. I needed time to study. I had an eight-hour-a-week contract. That worked for me. I do not see why that was particularly onerous on my employer when, perhaps, there was not so much work available. That was the minimum commitment to me as an employee. I had holiday pay with that, which you do not get with zero-hour contracts. I had the flexibility to take those holidays when I needed time to study for exams.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. As he well knows, I have brought forward plenty of amendments to plenty of Bills. I am one MLA. I brought forward my own private Member's Bill. It was passed and is now an Act. I have done my work in the Chamber. This is a Bill. I am not on the Committee, but I am seeking to provide a contribution, and I will stand over my record happily. Indeed, I will go up against the Member and the Minister in the forthcoming elections and I will put my record to the people. I have no fear in that regard. I am making a contribution on the proposals we have in front of us. There is only so much that you can do, as one MLA, which is why I look forward to my party having more MLAs in the next Assembly. We will contribute further through amendments, questions and holding the Executive to account.”
“I will when I make this point. If the Member chooses not to move the amendment today and something is going to be brought forward from the Benches opposite, I will be willing to look at it. I stated that there was a stark choice. I do not envisage the same problems if we ban zero-hour contracts that he does. There may be better options, but I do not see it as the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is what we have. I will give way.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. The obvious thing to do would have been to agree that at the Executive and bring it forward in the Bill. That has not happened, and I have no confidence that we are going to see something better at Further Consideration Stage. If he is telling me that he is going to bring that forward —”
“— particularly at the lower-skilled end. I will give way.”
“The labour market already benefits the employer in the sense that the demand for work is much greater than the supply —”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention. He talks about a higher education strategy but, as he does not want to interfere in the universities' business, I wonder if it is worth the paper that it is written on. My point was more about his role within the Executive. If he cannot even get simple reforms through the Executive to be debated — not passed, as the Executive parties can vote against them if they wish, but even debated — I question what his role in the Executive is. That is part of the crux of why we are here debating one extreme, which is to ban zero-hour contracts, and the other extreme, which is to do nothing. As the Minister has outlined, there are other stages in between, but we are left with this stark choice. Given the stark choice that we have, I am, as I have said, more minded towards Mr Flanagan's approach.”
“— change that he proposes is blocked at the Executive. I will certainly give way.”
“At the other end, when I questioned him on what he can do in relation to universities — for example, as regards modern languages at Ulster University — he said that the universities are independent and that, while he funds them, they run their own affairs. I will ask a question that Mr Attwood is fond of asking about knowing the difference between being in government and being in power. The Minister is clearly in the Government, but is he in power? It seems to me that every —”
“I appreciate the Minister's clarification. He probably did save me going off on one particular tangent, so I will go off on a different one, but on a similar point. I ask this question: what is the Minister's role? I have questioned him on a number of issues, including this one. The reforms that he is seeking seem reasonable, but he has not been able to get them through the Executive to be debated here today. I have seen other reasonable reforms proposed by the Minister, such as those trying to make teacher training colleges more efficient and more integrated, not getting through the Executive.”
“It touches on Mr McCrea's amendment about the balance of power between employer and employee. Unfortunately, the demand for jobs in our economy is much higher than the supply, and that gives the employer power. The employee, particularly the lower skilled, has very little power. As Mr McCrea said, there is very little negotiation to be had. It boils down to, "Do you want the job? These are the conditions. Take it or leave it". <BR /> <BR />I have to come back to why we have no proposal from the Minister when there has been so much talk about the issue in the media and in Committee. Indeed, he has consulted on it. The speculation has been that even the minimum regulation — a ban on exclusivity contracts — was too much for the Executive and could not be agreed.”
“If that were before us today, I would certainly be attracted to it as the minimum that we should do on zero-hour contracts. It is not in front of us. <BR /> <BR />We are left with the option of a ban or doing nothing, which means completely unregulated zero-hour contracts. That leaves the opportunity to exploit workers, and I believe that there are exploitative zero-hour contracts. As has been pointed out, if that was not the case, a lot more highly skilled, highly paid professionals would seek the flexibility of zero-hour contracts. Maybe they would like to take three months to travel the world and then come back to their job. The reality, however, is that we do not see it at the high end of the labour market; we see it at the low end. We see unskilled, low-paid workers employed on zero-hour contracts.”
“Like other Members, I plan to speak to amendment Nos 10, 14 and 15. I start with amendment No 15 on zero-hour contracts. There has been considerable debate about it already. We face a stark choice between Mr Flanagan's proposal to ban zero-hour contracts and doing nothing. At Committee Stage and in other public discourse, there has been an acceptance that there is a problem with zero-hour contracts. The difficulty is that the Minister has made no proposals to address that problem. I am open to proposals, and the talk, up until now, was that there needed to be some form of regulation. I thought that there was growing consensus that there needed to be some regulation, starting from the very minimal form, outlined in the Minister's consultation, of banning exclusivity contracts.”
“Does he not see how someone being on an exclusive zero-hours contract is a form of exploitation and that we have no proposals to do away even with that?”
“I take on board the Member's point to an extent. However, if you are in a negotiation where one side has the opportunity to sack the other, there is no level playing field or negotiation. The employer calls the shots.”
“I appreciate the point he is making. I made reference in my speech to the lack of understanding that there perhaps is of the difference between our Executive and our Assembly. Surely the language of government and opposition is much more familiar to people.”
“It is clear from the opposition that Mr McCallister has faced to his proposals that there are those who do not like that scrutiny or that challenge or the fact that, despite our small numbers, we make a big difference and a big noise in the Assembly. We should be confident in our democracy, and a confident Executive would welcome a well-resourced and formal opposition. The three of us who are here right now have, through the private Members' Bills that we have brought in, made a contribution. We are not simply making up the numbers. We can make a difference, but it is important that we have provisions in place. At the moment, we do it in spite of the structures of the Assembly not because of them. In that regard, we should facilitate a stronger opposition to ultimately achieve that aim of better governance.”
“I have no problem with the leader of the opposition etc not being salaried differently from those of us on the Back Benches, but it is important that support resources and access to research and drafting are in place to ensure that the opposition can fulfil its functions as the opposition does in other chambers. <BR /> <BR />We on these Back Benches are often referred to as the "naughty corner". It is probably a badge that some of us wear with honour. Why are we tagged with that? We sit at the back of the class, and that is maybe part of the reason, but we cause trouble for the authority — the Executive — because we provide challenge. We do not accept what we are told, and we will not be talked down to.”
“I have no problem with that but saying, "No, you must qualify for government but if you choose not to be in government then you can be in opposition" means that we can have a situation — I do not think it is good governance — where we move between having an opposition and not having an opposition, depending on the decisions of individual parties on whether to take ministerial seats. <BR /> <BR />The Fresh Start proposals on opposition are poor, and we have an opportunity here to have a credible and resourced opposition. I take the points on salaries.”
“Amendment No 1, in Mr McCallister's name, sets a reasonable threshold. I do not hope for my party that it will forever have one MLA; I hope that, on the other side of May, we will be a stronger party, comprising more than 5% of the number of MLAs. That is something that we should campaign for and aspire to, so I think that it is reasonable to set a threshold. I do not think it should simply be a case of, "I'm here and I want". I have to grow my party if I want it to have increased influence in the Assembly.”
“We could still implement, through changes to Standing Orders, the rules to have an opposition, but the parties who qualify for government might say that they are happy enough in government and do not need an opposition. They can continue suing each other, working together when it suits them and in opposition to each other at other times, but effectively they still take the ministerial portfolios. They can still say that they are in government when good decisions are being made, and when bad decisions are being made, they can blame the other parties.”
“So only the Government could be in opposition. I thought that, clearly, this was not a serious proposal and attempt to move towards an effective — sorry, I will not say effective, because I think we have an effective opposition — but to have a recognised and formal opposition in this Assembly. <BR /> <BR />Let us rewind back to when the Ulster Unionists took their seat in the Executive; that was a time when we had no opposition. It seems to me that, given our current circumstances, we can still have that situation.”
“I think it is fundamental in terms of the changes which should, in my view, lead to an improvement in the performance of the Executive and the accountability of Executive parties. <BR /> <BR />As regards membership of the opposition and who should be permitted to be in opposition, we are told that 'A Fresh Start' is the way forward. I remember reading 'A Fresh Start' with incredulity. I saw great provision for opposition. I thought that it was a step forward that had been agreed. Then I read the detail and saw that it effectively says that, in order to be a member of the opposition, you have to first be a member of the Government. I read it again because I thought that I had it wrong, but that is what it said: you must first qualify to be in government, then you can decide to be in opposition.”
“Sometimes my problem is not that we have no opposition but that everybody thinks they are in opposition. As soon as a decision is made that is unpopular, every party steps out and says, "That was not my party; it was them-uns. We stood up and argued". We are very fond of doing that in Northern Ireland politics. <BR /> <BR />Are you a Government? Are you an Executive? Are you a collective? Or are you just a collection of parties in the Executive? If we are to be taken seriously in Northern Ireland, and if we are serious about reforms towards good governance, it is essential that we have collective decision-making and corporate governance in the Executive. I cannot understand opposition to clause 21.”
“So, when we have a situation in which one Government Minister takes another Government Minister to court, we do harm to all of these institutions and our governance. <BR /> <BR />It should not be a big ask that our Executive act as a single corporate entity. We have a coalition in Northern Ireland and have seen the difficulties faced by the Conservatives and Lib Dems. However, we saw both those parties stand up and speak in favour of things that, privately and behind the scenes, they were not entirely happy with, but they spoke as one Government. We see it in the Republic of Ireland, which continuously has a coalition Government, where the Government speak as one and take the criticism as one. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister is fond of saying that we have no opposition here.”
“The institutions have been effective in delivering peace. They have not been effective in delivering good governance, and, ultimately, that should be where we now seek to get to. If 1998 was about peace and stability, to a large extent that objective has been achieved, although of course there are still problems within many of our communities. In 2016, we need to look at good governance and good delivery for the people who elect us. <BR /> <BR />Moving away slightly from the power debate between opposition and the Executive, I think that one of the key clauses in this Bill is clause 21, which is about collective government. I am not in the Executive, but when the Executive lose credibility, people do not always make a distinction; for example, I get stopped in the street and asked, "What are youse doing up there?".”