Mark Durkan
Foyle · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“That review involved an extensive engagement exercise with charities, regulators and funders, aimed at creating a more modern and proportionate regulatory system.”
“When the review was commenced in 2021, many organisations were still in the midst of responding to the pandemic. Since then, they have faced a succession of new and evolving challenges. The ending of European funding programmes, on which so many in our communities relied for decades, has left a significant gap.”
“<BR /> <BR />The broad principles behind the Bill are sensible. The changes will modernise charity regulation, strengthen the Charity Commission's ability to intervene where misconduct or mismanagement occurs, improve information sharing and, importantly, reduce unnecessary red tape, particularly for smaller charities with limited adminis…”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak today. Before turning to the detail of the legislation — there will not even be that much detail in the debate today at Second Stage — I pay tribute to our charity sector. Across every constituency, charities provide support that changes and saves lives every single day.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst the SDLP supports legislation that removes unnecessary bureaucracy, we should not kid ourselves that administrative reform alone will secure the future of charities and organisations in the voluntary and community sector.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Like other Members, I welcome the fact that we have reached this point. There seems to be consensus among Committee members and, I am sure, all Members that the introduction of these measures will save lives, which begs the question of whether the 10-year delay in introducing the measures had an opposi…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,938 lines we hold for Mark Durkan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 28 of 79.
“I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome any progress in that area. The sad reality, however, is that people and places have not seen the improvement to date. In some areas, people might have to wait up to three times as long as the target time for an ambulance to arrive. That would be completely unacceptable if it were a Domino's pizza. It is beyond the pale if that has been the case for people who are waiting on hospital treatment and whose life —”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Rent control was debated extensively in Committee, and we were told again and again by officials that it could not be done through the Bill. They explained to us why it could not be done. As well as the horror with which his amendment was received in the House, will the Member acknowledge the opposition in the sector from Housing Rights, which is an expert organisation in the field, and Renters' Voice to the unintended consequences that his amendment, if carried, would have had?”
“It could not have been achieved without their contribution, assistance and continued patience. I look forward to those further legislative steps in the next mandate to make the reforms to the private rented sector in the North as comprehensive and effective as they need to be.”
“I hope that I am back in the next mandate to work with him and others to ensure that that meaningful work is done. I also hope that the Minister's efforts to lift the freeze on local housing allowance rates come to fruition to provide an added layer of protection for low-income households that rent privately as they navigate the cost-of-living crisis. <BR /> <BR />I thank departmental and Committee officials and pay tribute to all the agencies in the housing sector that helped to push and progress this vital legislation, particularly Housing Rights.”
“It is the foundation on which people and their families build their lives. The need to have somewhere safe and secure to call home is felt even more keenly in the current climate. <BR /> <BR />This is a good, solid piece of work that will act as a springboard for further essential reforms, including strengthening policy around security of tenure and grounds for eviction. We really must ensure that we swiftly take those next steps to protect people. We need to do that. I very much welcome the inclusion of the clause, from Further Consideration Stage, that compels work to be done on rent control. Although Mr Carroll is undoubtedly aggrieved by what happened at Further Consideration Stage to his amendment, which was well intentioned but perhaps a wee bit ill-informed, he deserves credit for that provision being in the Bill.”
“Many of those are lone parent families, who have been the most adversely impacted by the pandemic and whose financial outlook will undoubtedly be even more precarious given the cost-of-living crisis that is engulfing our communities. <BR /> <BR />The provisions set out in the Bill, from improved electrical safety to notice to quit enhancements, will prove crucial for renters in the time ahead. As others said, this much-needed legislation marks the first step in a robust framework of measures to strengthen tenancies by improving the safety, security and quality of the private rented sector. It is, essentially, the long-overdue safety net that will improve the often precarious nature of private tenancies. The past couple of years have highlighted the importance of secure, stable housing and the central role that that plays in all our lives.”
“I welcome the fact that we have reached the Final Stage of the Private Tenancies Bill after what have been, to say the least, a few arduous and uncertain weeks politically. That is, however, nothing compared with the arduousness and uncertainty that so many people living in the private sector have experienced over the past few years. <BR /> <BR />To date, protections in the private rented sector in Northern Ireland have been severely lacking. No specific legislation has been in place to protect private renters, many of whom — probably most of whom — have been pushed into the sector because of a dearth of social housing stock. The bulk of those tenants are young families.”
“Today, I will seek out and speak to smaller parties and independent Members to get support for an emergency private Member's Bill that will amend the Financial Assistance Act 2009 to unlock the ability for Ministers to define, design and deliver schemes to help people in the absence of an Executive or First Minister and deputy First Minister. <BR /> <BR />We have a lot of work to do, and we do not have a lot of time in which to do it. The Bill Office has assured me that it is almost impossible to do it, but, as we know, politics is the art of the possible. I appeal to all of you for support and assistance. For once, let us put politics to the side and put people first.”
“If it does not do that, however — we heard again over the weekend that it will not — we cannot just shrug our shoulders and point our fingers. <BR /> <BR />Ministers have said that they will leave no stone unturned in trying to find a way to help people. We have £300 million that could be used to do just that. Well, the SDLP has found the stone and turned it; we have found a way. It is not an easy way, but it is not an impossible one. On Friday and over the weekend, I engaged with colleagues from the other Executive parties.”
“What a couple of years this has been. People have come through a global pandemic that has had a devastating impact, physically, mentally and financially. We have lurched straight from that into this cost-of-living crisis, which shows no signs of letting up. With the current events in Ukraine and Russia, people have gone from struggling to struggling and panicking. <BR /> <BR />People whom I meet have no idea how they will continue to heat their homes and feed their families. People need help now, and our Government are not able to help them now; in fact, we do not have a Government. We have heard from many Ministers about how their hands are tied due to the completely unacceptable, illogical and damaging position of the DUP. Of course, the simplest thing would be for the DUP to put people ahead of politics and nominate a First Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also pay tribute to all the individuals and organisations, including Gambling with Lives, Christian Action, Research, and Education (CARE), individual families and those who have experienced problem gambling and have the scars to show for it for their contributions and involvement throughout the extensive consultation process. I put on record my party's gratitude to the Committee staff, departmental staff and, of course, our friends in the Bill Office, whom we have seen a lot of over the past wee while. <BR /> <BR />I hope that proper, robust regulation will be tackled in the next phase in order to fully protect individuals and their families from the life-shattering scourge of gambling addiction. I support the Bill.”
“The legislation is a missed opportunity to implement real, worthwhile provisions to help the 40,000 people here who are experiencing problem gambling and their families. Questions around regulating online gambling remain, as do many other loose ends that are in need of being tied up. I am under no illusion that tackling the issue is easy. Finding solutions is difficult and implementing them even more so, but just because something is difficult does not mean that we should not, at least, try. It means that we have to try harder and do better. We all have to try harder and do better in the next mandate to make sure that we take that next big step towards addressing the issues that the Bill does not address or was not able to address.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given that, as of 2016, the problem gambling rate in Northern Ireland was over four and a half times greater than that in England, it is clear that the severity of the situation here demands immediate action. We cannot afford to wait for regulation that may never come, and we appreciate that the Minister acknowledges the legislation as a first step in bringing forward necessary reforms to the gambling industry. We argue that, after 40 years, people at risk of gambling-related harm deserve and need much more than a first step. If something is worth doing, it is worth doing right. What we have today is a bit of a wishy-washy attempt. Its shortcomings and outright omission of tangible protections cannot be overlooked or ignored as we welcome the passage of the Bill today.”
“<BR /> <BR />While we of course welcome the modest measures within this work, I have said before that it aims for the low-hanging fruit and, in doing so, falls short, in our view, of comprehensively bridging that legislative gap. That is not just our view; that is coming from the officials and the Minister. I have, on numerous occasions, expressed my disappointment at the lack of ambition in the Bill, particularly around a robust regulatory framework and implementing an all-island gambling strategy, and I regret that attempts to secure a meaningful mandatory levy were not fruitful. My comments today are not in any way a criticism of the Minister, as the constraints under which the work was being carried out were reiterated to the Committee regularly. I feel that, today, this is more of a lament at what we could have won.”
“We welcome the Final Stage of the Bill and the long, long overdue update of gambling legislation here. It has been 40 years, as the Minister pointed out. <BR /> <BR />The failure to advance meaningful protections for people suffering from gambling addictions, the consequences of which devastate lives, is unacceptable. In the four decades since gambling legislation here was updated, the industry's landscape has been transformed beyond recognition. That transformation has created a legislative gap — more than one legislative gap, as we discovered in Committee — that fails to protect some of the 40,000 problem gamblers across the North.”
“I place on record my party's gratitude to the hard-working staff in jobs and benefits offices. It is a stressful job at the best of times, but it is fair to say that the past couple of years have been unprecedented in terms not just of demand but of people's desperation and the situations that they have found themselves in and needing help to get out of. <BR /> <BR />Minister, for clarity, can you outline for the House what support is provided by jobs and benefits offices to benefit claimants, such as those in receipt of universal credit (UC), who are not computer-literate to ensure that they are not disadvantaged by the online system?”
“I acknowledge that major legislative steps are required in the next mandate to provide tangible protections and security of tenure for people in the private rented sector.”
“Given that there is a two-year time frame to make regulations following Royal Assent, we are hopeful that the subsequent legislation to strengthen security of tenure and grounds for eviction will be progressed or completed by then. It is important to stress that the provisions before us today are just one piece of the puzzle and require a broader framework of measures to maximise their impact and benefit to people. <BR /> <BR />To conclude, we support the Minister's amendments, and, given that they render Mr Carroll's amendments all but obsolete, we shall not be supporting his amendments. I welcome, once again, the broad principles of the Bill, which is the first step of essential reform for the private rented sector.”
“We would have preferred a notice to quit period of 12 weeks for tenancies over 12 months and of eight weeks for tenancies under 12 months, but we appreciate that the Department has done its best with what it has been given. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 5 and 8, in essence, tie up the loose ends posed by Ms Ferguson's amendment to clause 11 at Consideration Stage, reducing the original six-tier time frames for notice to quit to a more succinct and clear four tiers, which makes it more manageable and easier to understand. Setting out time frames in weeks as opposed to months also improves clarity. While we welcome action to mitigate the unintended risks that were caused at Consideration Stage, harking back to the conversations that I had with other MLAs last week, those amendments may not go quite as far as we would have liked them to.”
“While protecting tenants is the foremost aim of the Bill — I have no doubt that it is foremost in Mr Carroll's mind; it is certainly foremost in mine — its implications further threaten the Bill's competency. It is, essentially, a risk that is not worth taking. <BR /> <BR />Notice to quit enhancements are, undoubtedly, the priority clause in the Bill. We saw how effective COVID emergency legislation proved to be in the prevention of homelessness for private renters. The numbers who were made homeless were almost halved by extending the notice to quit period from four weeks to 12 weeks. That emergency legislation is due to come to an end on 4 May, so it is important that immediate protections are in place to fill the legislative gap.”
“I welcome that consideration will be given on a case-by-case basis. A consultation process will be a vital provision in understanding the concerns of the sector and the impacts on it. Should the regulation come to pass, we would like to see an assessment process being implemented to ensure that any decrease in rent is means-tested, which would protect those who need it. <BR />On amendment No 2, while we understand the intent behind reducing the tenancy stipulation to one month, we fear that such a provision runs the risk of increased notices to quit in advance of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Rather than protecting private renters, it could — I would say that it would — put them at greater risk. Likewise, amendment No 3 almost creates an unfair balance of rights.”
“The Chair did not use the words, but she conveyed the impression that we stand here today almost on a rescue mission, with the Minister now tabling amendments to salvage whatever can be salvaged from amendments that she warned against and that her party voted for. They were not alone in that. <BR /> <BR />I will speak briefly about the amendments, as I appreciate that the Minister and my Committee colleagues have covered much of the details of them already. The Minister's amendments on rent decreases prove to be the best attempt at bridging the legislative gap posed by Mr Carroll's well-intentioned amendment No 13 to clause 7. Amendment No 1 maintains the spirit of the original while tying up the loose ends and introducing paragraphs to address its unintended consequences.”
“The Bill, however, marks the first step of a robust framework of measures to strengthen tenancies and add a level of security in the private rented sector. <BR /> <BR />The Bill's provisions have been outlined at length at previous stages, and we have been reminded of many of them today. I appreciate that, since we debated the Bill at Consideration Stage, a great deal of reparatory work has been undertaken by MLAs, as the Chair mentioned, departmental officials and Bill Office officials to bring the Bill back into legislative competence. I make special mention of Housing Rights, the efforts of which to undo the unintended damage that was caused and prevent the total collapse of this vital legislation has been greatly appreciated.”
“Protections for private renters in Northern Ireland have been severely lacking to date. There is no specific legislation in place to protect private renters, many of whom have been pushed into the sector by the dearth of social housing stock. The past two years have highlighted the importance of secure, stable housing and the central role that it plays in all our lives. The emergency legislation introduced by the Minister during that time to ensure that everyone had a roof over their head showed what could be achieved through a robust homelessness prevention framework. The need for such protections will be even more pronounced now and in the months ahead in the context of a cost-of-living crisis.”
“All that I might have said has been said. I just want to indicate our support for the regulations.”
“<BR /> <BR />The matter has been put to bed for now, but, regrettably, we cannot undo the damage that it has already caused for countless people here or rule out a future Minister here or, possibly, elsewhere trying to remove the protections. It remains on the statute. Given the full support for the Bill across the Chamber, which is welcome, it is important that we all commit or recommit to making sure that those cruel measures do not rear their ugly head again. The Bill will undoubtedly help those who need it. However, I lament the fact that it has taken so long to reach this point. Prioritising the needs of vulnerable households should have been treated with greater urgency. It is vital that we continue to work together to ensure delivery for everyone struggling to make ends meet at this extremely difficult time. We support the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Earlier, discretionary support was lauded as a coverall support mechanism. However, a few families have contacted me just this week who are sitting with no heat in their homes and have been refused even one penny of support from the crisis support scheme. Efforts to support those most in need must be immediate to maximise their impact. While the eventual action to banish the bedroom tax and to close loopholes is welcome, it comes as a wee bit "Too little, too late". The dither and delay in the interim has resulted in millions of pounds in unspent funds that could have, would have and should have provided assistance to people caught in a pandemic and now in the grip of a cost-of-living crisis.”
“Those households were not protected by the original, well-meaning, well-intentioned and welcome mitigations package. However, political stalemate — we were not here for three years — delayed the progress of vital welfare mitigation legislation. <BR /> <BR />Just hours ago, we listened to a statement from the Minister on the energy support payment scheme, which was announced in January and was promised to be paid by the middle of March, not to start in the middle of March. Meanwhile, people are left to suffer, and, despite the Minister issuing the same copy and paste response, support, or lack of support, especially for families not in receipt of benefits, simply is not cutting it. I understand that those are not all the responsibility of the Minister for Communities.”
“We warned of the incalculable harm that welfare reform would inflict on people right across the North, yet, despite those warnings, parties here voted for that disastrous legislation. I cannot be the only one who views the self-congratulation around this important and good legislation with a degree of cynicism. The bedroom tax should never have come to pass; in fact, Members of the Minister's party gave categorical assurances that it would never reach our shores. It seems that the policy was so bad that they binned it twice. <BR /> <BR />I find some of the grandstanding today on the delivery for vulnerable people difficult to comprehend. The Minister's party voted for the bedroom tax and welfare reform and, in doing so, subjected households here to the worst of Tory austerity.”
“The protections that are provided in the Bill are very welcome and extremely necessary. I am glad that the rescue operation on the bedroom tax is near its end and that efforts have, at long last, come to fruition to clear up the remnants of the damage that was imposed on vulnerable people here at the hands of their Executive.”
“I thank the Minister for her statement, although it is pretty underwhelming. In fact, worse than that, it is hugely disappointing. It tells us only what the Minister had told us in a written statement on 13 January, after she had told the media, and people still have not seen a penny. The benefit of the payment to households has been greatly reduced by a subsequent price hike. Of course, we welcome the fact that the payments are finally going out, but have the Minister and her ministerial colleagues given any consideration to how working families or those who are not on benefits can be protected? We know how much you care about protecting people, Minister, but the situation is so bad that everyone needs protection.”
“During the early stages of the Bill, I indicated the need to improve clause 15, and we supported amendments at Consideration Stage to strengthen the provisions on the code of practice. We are, therefore, content to support amendment No 2, which provides a bit more clarity on the revocation of licences.”
“I thank the Minister for tabling the amendments, which we will support. I hope that she does not mind my saying so, but she sounds almost as bad as I feel, so I will be brief as well. <BR /> <BR />We are certainly happy to support amendment No 1. I contend that Ms Murphy's comment that the Bill and this amendment will go a long way to reducing gambling harm is wrong. It is our regret that the Bill seems to go after the low-hanging fruit, or, if you like, the low-hanging fruit machines. However, we are happy to support the amendment. We might have preferred to have seen the inclusion of a robust regulatory provision for fixed-odds betting terminals: meaningful steps that would reduce — I mean really reduce — the real risk of gambling-related harm.”
“In that vein, I will get on with it. <BR /> <BR />Many of the proposed changes in the group 2 amendments relate to energy efficiency. They were advocated and agreed in principle during Committee Stage, particularly those to schedule 2. That being the case, we are content to support the Minister's amendments and welcome the fact that our concerns have been actioned and efforts made to strengthen the regulations. <BR /> <BR />I will bring my remarks to a close. The Bill is a solid yet unspectacular bit of work, but it provides a springboard to tackle the significant and outstanding challenges in subsequent mandates. I thank all the agencies in the housing sector that have helped progress this vital legislation, which will secure tangible stability and long-overdue protections for the private rented sector.”
“I welcome the broad principles of the Bill as a first step in essential reforms in the private rented sector, although I must stress, as others have, that it is just a first step in that process. At previous stages, I have raised concerns that the Bill does not go far enough to protect private renters, particularly on affordability, landlord licensing and, crucial to this part of the debate, fitness standards. The Minister and her officials stated that many of those protections fell outside the scope of the Bill. Some have now been brought into the Bill, as have the amendments made earlier. I look forward to working through those in Committee. We are also acutely aware of the need for speed with the work and do not wish to hinder the Bill's progress and the implementation of the vital and potentially life-saving improvements.”
“<BR /> <BR />I would also be happy to hear from the Minister about her willingness, given that she expressed such willingness regarding Ms Ferguson's amendment, to work with the proposer of amendment No 13 to refine what is being proposed, if that is possible, at Further Consideration Stage to ensure that it does what I have no doubt that the proposer wants it to do without those unintended consequences.”
“Specifically, if the amendment excludes shorter tenancies from the 12-week provision, the position would revert to either common law or the default position in the Private Tenancies Bill for tenancies that are less than six months, which provides for a notice period of six weeks. As stated, we believe that, in such cases, an eight-week period would be more appropriate, but I would be happy to hear a bit more from Mr Carroll about his intention behind the amendment.”
“It also creates some anomalies with the current Private Tenancies Order and could, potentially, present legal challenges. We are concerned, again, about unintended consequences.”
“However, the risks associated with securing a new tenancy are much greater for a tenant than they are for a landlord. Therefore a longer period should be afforded for tenancies of less than 12 months. Preferably, it should be a period of at least eight weeks. In our view, the four-week notice to quit that tenants must provide to their landlord is adequate. <BR /> <BR />In the same vein, we recognise the intent behind Mr Carroll's amendment, and while we would like to see a 12-week provision for tenancies over 12 months, we have concerns around the implications of amendment No 16 as drafted. Following consultation with Housing Rights, it is clear that it shares those concerns and believes that the amendment, as it stands, risks leaving no provision for existing tenancies of fewer than 12 weeks.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given that clause 11 as drafted is based on the functions within the Private Tenancies Order, implementing a 12-week notice to quit for landlords for tenancies over one year would be the most reasonable step to take. As alluded to earlier, we have seen over the past two years that the 12-week provision has worked well in its aim to reduce — well, in many cases, sadly, delay — homelessness in the private rented sector, but it is clear that a notice to quit period of four weeks is not an adequate time frame in which to expect any tenant, regardless of the length of their tenancy, to secure alternative accommodation. That provision must be extended and applied equally to all private tenancies, including fixed-term tenancies. We agree that notice to quit periods must be proportionate.”
“Reforms being brought forward by the Irish Government mean that renters will have the right to tenancies of unlimited duration, which will strengthen long-term security of tenure. It also has prescribed grounds for evictions. We would like to see both those provisions afforded here. In their absence, amendment Nos 15, 18 and 19 are, although well-intentioned, maybe a bit impractical. However, I am happy to hear more from the Minister on that. She said that their passage today would result in quite a bit of work being required by the Department on compatibility. I would like to hear a wee bit more on that before we make up our mind, but some within the sector have also expressed concern about the potential implications or consequences of those amendments.”
“On clause 11 and the amendments concerning notice to quit periods, I am baffled and a bit frustrated by the Department's decision to consult on the notice to quit when we are in the middle of scrutinising the legislation. It is putting the cart before the horse, and doing so has meant that the Committee has not been given a full picture or, in my opinion, adequate time in which to scrutinise the clause, and now these amendments, in detail. There is a lot of detail in the amendments. I am supportive of the sentiments of the amendments, which would mean that a staggered approach to notice to quit periods would be required by tenants and landlords, depending on the length of tenancy. That is essentially mirroring provision in the South, but I must point out that the North operates under distinctly different legislation.”
“At the moment, therefore, I do not think that we can support that, although we welcome the intention and look forward to working with Mr Carroll and others on establishing a proper, adequate and fair model of putting caps on rents to stop the exploitation of many who are living in private accommodation. Do not get me wrong: there are some landlords out there who, I am sure, are charging exorbitant rents and making significant profits, but this is a fairly blunt instrument that would end up causing a lot of damage.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Chair pointed out our dependence on single-property landlords, who make up the bulk of our private rental estate. Those landlords — certainly, the ones I know — are not making a wile pile of profit, but they definitely cannot afford to keep on properties at a loss. Inevitably, in our view, you would end up with people selling properties. Before the Bill gets Royal Assent, you might see rental prices skyrocketing to enable landlords to absorb that 10% decrease. Either way, the impact — although unintended and not desired by Mr Carroll — will undermine stability, security and availability.”
“As I have done previously, I suggest that we look towards the Scottish model and consider implementing a provision to challenge and restrict unfair rent increases at the next stage of reform. We cannot afford to wait too long for that, and it underlines the importance of getting this place up and running again and keeping it up and running. <BR /> <BR />Mr Carroll's amendment is a wee bit unclear. I know that the Chair has expressed some concerns as to who would cover the 10% rent reduction. Is it envisaged that there would be some form of government subsidy, or is it intended that private landlords would be left to absorb that reduction? That reduction for a year and then a freeze, at today's rate, for a following three years does not recognise or reflect external economic factors such as interest rates.”
“I have a few concerns about some of the other amendments, and I may seek additional clarity around them. <BR /> <BR />Looking at Mr Carroll's amendment No 13, we certainly agree that action must be taken, not just on the frequency of unfair rent increases, which the Bill will address, but on the amount of the increase. That is a point that I have raised at previous stages of this legislative process and repeatedly in the Committee. We were repeatedly told by the Minister and the Department that work is under way to explore rent controls, that that will come in a new piece of legislation in the next mandate, and that, to try to rush something through now could, potentially, or would, most likely, have unintended and undesired consequences.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I apologise for that wee technical issue. <BR /> <BR />The Chair has outlined the extensive work that the Committee has done in considering this vital legislation. Other Members and the Minister have outlined the urgency with which we need the Bill passed in order to provide security to those who live in the private rented sector. We all agree that there are too many people in that sector and that we have a complete over-reliance on the sector. That is why it is so important that we get proper and robust regulation of it. <BR /> <BR />My party supports all the Minister's amendments in group 1, most of which are the fruition of extensive engagement and labour among the Committee, stakeholders and the Department.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. In an earlier answer, the Minister cited the spectacular Belfast skyline as a measure of the success not just of Invest NI but of his Department over the past 15 years. A look around the respective skylines of other areas and other constituencies, including mine, will, therefore, give an indication of their collective failure. <BR /> <BR />Prospective investors look at the skills base in a region when they make investment decisions. Will the Department begin the process of building the skills base in the Foyle constituency through higher education? Otherwise, the review is kind of pointless.”
“I very much concur with the Member's thoughts, particularly on scratch cards. They are often seen as an impulse buy. They are placed at tills, where everyone has to go when they are in a shop. We have seen public health interventions being made in other areas. Cigarettes were packaged in plain packaging, and then eventually removed from view, and some sugary and unhealthy snacks have been moved away from checkouts. Does the Member agree that that is the route that we would have liked to have taken with scratch cards, had we the power to do so? We will all be familiar with the good causes that the lottery contributes towards and supports, but only 9% of the yield from point-of-sale scratch cards goes to good causes, whereas your normal raffle-type lottery contributes 32%.”