Paula Bradley
North Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I am especially grateful to all the women who, especially in my first mandate here, were a constant support and encouragement to me as a new MLA. Nothing ever prepares you for this role, but many inside and outside this Building are the glue that holds it all together.”
“I thank them for their support, especially over the last week, with the phone calls, emails, cards and flowers, but, most of all, for allowing me to be part of their lives, sometimes at the most difficult times. Secondly, I want to thank my party, of which I have been a member for 20 years.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will try my very best to get through these three minutes without tears in my eyes, though I doubt that that is going to happen. <BR /> <BR />I will begin by thanking you, Mr Speaker.”
“After much discussion with officials concerning the objectives of the Bill, the detail of an SMI loan, the process of registering and removing the statutory charge and how and when an SMI loan is repaid, the Committee was content with the Bill as drafted. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill.”
“I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill. It is probably the shortest Bill that the Committee considered, but it is no less important, as it aims to protect owner-occupiers in receipt of an income-related benefit from the threat of repossession.”
“I know that I have caused a few headaches over the past two years, but you have always delivered week in, week out and put the needs of the Committee first and foremost. You have made my role as Committee Chair so much easier. For all that you have done, I am truly thankful.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,102 lines we hold for Paula Bradley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 23.
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee welcomes the additional governance requirements in the regulations, which will ensure that they will apply to trustees of master trust schemes and to trustees of schemes providing collective money purchase benefits. There are huge sums of money involved in pension schemes, and it is only right that the schemes are subject to strong governance arrangements. The regulations recognise that the quality of certain climate-related data may currently be limited, so trustees are, as far as they are able, required to comply with a number of the governance requirements.”
“The Committee considered the statutory rule on 23 September 2021 and understands that the rule will introduce requirements for trustees of certain occupational pension schemes. The regulations form part of a package of regulations that amend existing pension legislation to introduce related disclosure and notification requirements and requirements about trustees' knowledge and understanding of matters relating to the effects of climate change on occupational pension schemes. The requirements are not to ensure that there is effective governance of those schemes with respect to the effects of climate change. As well as that, the regulations will introduce related reporting and publication requirements for such trustees and confer new compliance powers on the Pensions Regulator.”
“The movement also includes the capital reduced requirement of £18·8 million related to funding received for the subregional stadia programme, which, as we know, was not able to be spent in the current financial year, mainly due to delays in the planning process. The Committee has diligently sought updates on the progress and financing of key capital projects and, indeed, this week, is holding a briefing session with officials on the subregional stadia programme, which, the Minister states, she remains committed to delivering. <BR /> <BR />Regrettably, our ambitions for our population and, particularly, to support the most vulnerable in our community continue to be hampered by our finances. The Committee has sought to listen to the concerns brought to it and encourages the Department to take action.”
“The Committee is under no illusions about the scale of the massive investment challenges facing the Housing Executive. <BR /> <BR />The increase also includes in-year allocations of £122 million, including in-year COVID allocations and budget movements from the Department to its arm's-length bodies (ALBs). There is a reduction of £51 million due to declared reduced requirements, a number of which I have already mentioned, and £17 million transferred to the Department of Finance from the housing benefit rates budget to cover the cost of the rates replacement scheme in Land and Property Services (LPS). <BR /> <BR />In capital DEL, there has been movement in the SSEs from the Main Estimates of around 30%. That includes £18·4 million in-year capital allocations; for example, over £8 million for disabled adaptations, which is very welcome.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said earlier, last week, the Committee received the Department's 2021-22 spring Supplementary Estimates and the accompanying memorandum, which gives the Committee a clearer picture of the movement of finance in-year. I will highlight a few items in the SSEs. There has been a movement in the resource DEL of almost 18% from the Main Estimates. The Committee notes that that includes headroom of £124 million, as the Department has bid for that amount for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive: £77 million for the Housing Executive landlord thermal insulation programme and £47 million for the Housing Executive landlord tower block action plan. The Committee was pleased to hear the Finance Minister announce on 15 February that he intended to part fund those bids from funding being held at the centre.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee remains concerned about the lack of resources over the year for many initiatives, including reform of the Housing Executive, the real-terms decrease in the budget for the Supporting People programme and any lack of real progress on a range of social strategies. Before the end of the mandate, we will hear more about some of those concerns at first hand as the Committee is devoting a meeting to hear from organisations that deliver assisted and supported living, and we recently held an evidence session with the Housing Executive to hear its key concerns about the draft Budget for 2022-25.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee also expressed concern about the surrender of around £3 million for existing welfare mitigations, in addition to the £2 million in the October monitoring round relating to the delays in the closing of the benefit cap mitigation loophole and the social size criteria mitigation loophole. Thankfully, we are now in a better place, and those loopholes are closed. I highlight the fact that the Committee remains concerned about insufficient funding being made available to introduce any new welfare mitigations based on any recommendations from the independent panel.”
“For example, £14 million was not required due to a lower uptake of the COVID recovery labour market interventions. In reality, that is for mixed reasons, good and bad. Lower than anticipated job losses from COVID, the furlough scheme and the high levels of job vacancies are good reasons. However, the Committee remains concerned that further steps are needed to encourage uptake of the interventions. There is a potential need for geographical or area-based targeting for constituencies or concentrations of people where youth unemployment is particularly high. I have said it in previous Budget speeches, but it is worth repeating that the Committee wishes to highlight the link between the success of the labour market interventions and the level of the AME spend. Interventions are needed to get people back into work and off benefits.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee has engaged on a number of recent occasions with departmental officials on the rapid increase in energy costs. The Committee was relieved when the Department received its bid for £55 million to allow an energy support payment scheme to be progressed in addition to the earlier £2 million emergency fuel payment scheme. The Committee queried whether the resubmission of a £7 million bid for councils that was not met in-year was sufficient, as many of the financial pressures have continued into 2022. We were somewhat reassured that officials confirmed that the bid will meet the need as it stands at the moment. <BR /> <BR />We express concern at the recent surrender of a total of over £21 million resource DEL due to reduced requirements.”
“The Committee supported the delivery of priorities such as social housing building targets, as well as meeting statutory and contractual commitments and the use of the remaining funding for other prioritised projects across the Department's remit. <BR /> <BR />I move on to more recent events. In January, the Committee was briefed on the monitoring round. The Committee was not surprised to hear that 2021-22 continued to be a challenging year to manage spend against budgets. The Committee was reassured that the Department used the opportunity to reposition its budget to deal with existing and new pressures. There remain significant uncertainties from COVID and its lasting impacts, which means that requirements are liable to change.”
“In the final Budget for 2021-22, the Department was allocated only £109·6 million of its submitted resource bid of £301·6 million, and that included £48·2 million for existing welfare mitigations. Over £132 million of resource bids were for COVID recovery, and only around half of that was met in the final Budget. Thankfully, additional funds of £50·3 million were quickly released by the Department of Finance to address a range of COVID pressures, including £10 million for councils and £13 million for arts, culture and heritage. <BR /> <BR />On capital allocations, the final Budget saw a £10 million increase when compared with the year before, plus £38·8 million of FTC to support the Co-ownership housing scheme.”
“That is all welcome information, and I will refer to it in my speech. However, the Estimates would have been even more helpful had they been provided to the Committee earlier, well in advance of the Budget debates this week. Adding to that, the sheer volume of primary legislation that the Committee has dealt with in the past year has made it challenging to monitor departmental allocations and spending in detail as we would have liked to have done over 2021-22.”
“At the same time, it received the new memorandum document, which has been prepared by each Department at the request of the Committee for Finance to improve scrutiny and explain the funding being sought and the reasons for changes in spending plans between the Main and spring Supplementary Estimates.”
“It was still far from what was needed, but it went some way to easing the Committee’s concern at its original draft budget. The Department's final budget was still very challenging, and there was no funding for the Department to take forward many New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) commitments. <BR /> <BR />The 2021-22 Budget position has, of course, been revised through in-year monitoring rounds from revised departmental spending plans, and, now, those are reflected in detail in the 2021-22 spring Supplementary Estimates. The Committee received those Estimates only last week, so it has had limited time to digest them.”
“<BR /> <BR />The impact of COVID-19 meant the reconsidering of the plan to provide a multi-year Budget, and we, again, had a single-year Budget for 2021-22, which made planning for services and programmes so much more difficult and, therefore, the scrutiny role of the Committee equally difficult. <BR /> <BR />In the final Budget, the Department's 2021-22 allocations totalled around £876 million in resource DEL, which, thankfully, was an increase from the £824 million in the draft Budget; almost £225 million capital DEL, which was an increase of over £10 million on last year’s allocation; and £38·8 million in financial transactions capital. <BR /> <BR />The final Communities budget represented a £55 million increase from the baseline draft budget, mainly due to a number of COVID bids being met.”
“Around a year ago, as we debated the draft Budget for 2021-22 in the House, I assured the Minister of Finance that the Committee for Communities would continue to work closely with the Department for Communities to support it to achieve all that it could, whatever its Budget allocation. However, it is not an overstatement to say that, early in 2021, the Committee was dismayed at the allocations in the draft Budget for 2021-22 for Communities. The Committee remained supportive of the Minister throughout the year as she continued to lobby for additional and emergency funding to support the most vulnerable.”
“On behalf of the Committee, I record our sincere thanks to the individuals and organisations who provided oral or written evidence. Thanks must also go to the departmental officials who worked patiently and effectively with the Committee, providing a flow of timely and accurate information to allow the Committee to meet its legislative deadline. Finally, thanks must go to the Bill Office staff, the Research and Information Service and the Committee team, all of whom have worked so diligently to get this to the Chamber today.”
“Officials confirmed for us that electrical appliances provided by the landlord are covered in the Bill and that electrical safety testing would apply to appliances provided by the landlord. Officials also confirmed that the frequency of electrical testing is not in the Bill but would be in the regulations and that further work is needed to establish the more appropriate frequency of electrical testing. <BR /> <BR />At its meeting on 11 January 2022, the Committee considered the final draft revised schedule 2 and the related amendments to schedule 3 and supported both. <BR /> <BR />The Committee would have wished to see a more ambitious Bill but understands the time constraints of the current mandate. Members acknowledged that it is an important first step towards further reform in the next mandate.”
“Schedule 3 provides the Department with the power to make regulations imposing duties on private landlords for the purposes of ensuring that electrical safety standards are met during the period in which the property is let under the tenancy. The Committee was keen to ensure that it understood the scope of the Bill in that regard and queried with officials the frequency of electrical testing, fixed wiring checks, electrical installation condition reports and portable appliance testing (PAT). Officials responded that schedule 3 places the burden of ensuring that the rented property is protected on the landlord and that the decision was taken to exclude obligatory PAT as that requirement is not legislated for in private dwellings.”
“Officials informed the Committee that work could be performed gradually to avoid that occurring and that the new schedule would give the Department a structure to adhere to when improving energy efficiency standards without impacting on housing stock levels. <BR /> <BR />The Committee heard that the amendments to the schedule had led to a rewriting of the explanatory and financial memorandum. Officials also confirmed that more detailed legislation regarding energy efficiency would be considered in the next stage of reforms. <BR /> <BR />The Committee supports the Minister's amendment Nos 39 to 45 to schedule 3, which relates to electrical safety standards.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee heard that schedule 2 gives powers to the Department to address a number of energy efficiency measures, including the relevant works carried out on premises to decarbonise and improve their energy efficiency ratings and the distribution of energy performance certificates. The Committee raised concerns that EPCs could lead to a reduction in the appropriately certified housing stock or increase the rent of the existing stock. We also raised concerns that more invasive work on rented premises to bring them up to standard had the potential to temporarily render tenants homeless.”
“The first that the Committee heard of the revised schedule was at its meeting on 2 December 2021, when officials stated that, as drafted, schedule 2, which relates to clause 9, did not fully achieve the regulations that the Department wished to enact or deliver policy objectives as intended and that proposals for a revised schedule 2 were being finalised with the Office of the Legislative Counsel. <BR /> <BR />At subsequent meetings in December, the Committee considered each amendment and its purpose in discussion with officials. The Committee accepted the positive nature of the proposals and that the schedule will be a tool to drive the decarbonisation of a significant portion of the housing stock to deliver our climate change obligations.”
“Amendment Nos 25 to 38 relate to schedule 2, which is on the energy efficiency of dwellings that are let under a private tenancy. The Committee supports the Minister's amendment Nos 25 to 38. As I mentioned in my speech on group 1, although the Committee finally agreed to clause 9 and schedule 2, it was put in a difficult position as, midway through its deliberations, the Department produced a new, enhanced schedule 2 to future-proof the legislation as it was concerned that the powers as introduced were too limiting. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted that it was unheard of and far from ideal to be presented with a new schedule in the middle of its deliberations and one on which it had taken no evidence.”
“I will need to scrutinise that information in order to make an informed decision. I am not saying that I would not be willing to look at something similar at Further Consideration Stage, however. I will end there, as I know that my party colleagues will have plenty more to say.”
“<BR /> <BR />I move on to amendment Nos 15 and 19, standing in the name of Ciara Ferguson. Again, I absolutely get the tiered approach suggested in the amendments, and the Committee discussed the need for that time and time again. I find the amendments a little bit confusing, however. It is perhaps just the way in which they are worded and set out. I am also a little worried about them, because the Committee has not had the chance to have proper sight of the consultation on notices to quit. That will be before the Committee tomorrow, when we will get the chance to scrutinise the document and ask officials questions. I am going to wait to hear what Ciara has to say about the tiered approach, but I am very cautious about it, as I do not have all the information.”
“One was that some of the changes that we might want to introduce could force landlords to sell their properties because of onerous requirements placed on them. I am not saying that that would happen, but a 10% reduction in rents might well lead to that. When Mr Carroll speaks, he can perhaps let us know how he expects the shortfall in landlord payments to be paid for. Does he expect the Assembly to pay them? Has he costed that? We know that many of our landlords in Northern Ireland are single-property owners with buy-to-let or buy-to-rent mortgages. We also know that many of those landlords just about cover their bills at the end of every month through their rental charges. Perhaps Mr Carroll can go into a little bit more detail on how landlord payments as a result of that 10% reduction will be met.”
“Amendment Nos 23 and 24 relate to clause 13. The Committee supports amendment No 23, which is required as a result of amendment No 22. I highlight the fact that the Committee has been informed of the need for the administrative amendment No 24 to ensure that there is as little disruption as possible and no gap between the current 12-week notice to quit period and the new notice to quit period in clause 11. <BR /> <BR />I will now say a few words in my capacity as a DUP MLA. I turn first to Mr Carroll's amendment, which is amendment No 13. I absolutely understand the sentiments in his amendment, but I have some concerns about it. Time and time again in the Committee, we heard about unintended consequences.”
“In our report, we recommend that, in advance of the consultation, the guidance on the legislation and the proposed template for landlords should lay it out clearly that it is expected that landlords will offer a choice of payment options, with a list of suitable options.”
“The Committee felt strongly that landlords should not be able to insist on solely cash payments and should offer tenants a choice of payment methods. The Committee had lengthy discussions on the matter and felt strongly that it needed to be addressed. At first, the Committee drafted its own amendment with the Bill Office to provide a choice of payment methods. Officials were concerned about the unintended consequences of our proposals and provided the Committee with proposed new clause 11A, "Payment options for tenants: power to make provision and duty to consult", to allow for regulations to be made on the issue after a public consultation to uncover the scale of the problem and what a preferred way forward would be. The Committee accepted the proposal and supports amendment No 22.”
“We were assured that the consultation addressed that for tenancies that were under 12 months and those over 12 months and up to 10 years and consulted on options for eight, 12 or 26 weeks. The Committee recommended that consideration be given to more nuanced tiers of the notice-to-quit period. The Committee was advised that the Bill provided sufficient regulation-making powers to make any required future changes to notice-to-quit periods as a result of the consultation and once further required work on exemptions had been carried out. At its meeting tomorrow, the Committee is to receive a further briefing from officials on the outcome of the consultation and the way forward. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 22 proposes new clause 11A.”
“We discussed that at length and were assured that that work was being taken forward in phase 2 on fair rent. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 15 to 21 relate to clause 11. I have already stated the difficult position that the Committee found itself in on the clause due to the consultation on notice-to-quit periods, which completed after the Committee was obliged to report on the Bill. The Committee, after seeking its own legal advice, agreed not to seek amendments to the clause and has no official position on the amendments. I will leave it to individual Members to comment on the amendments. <BR /> <BR />What I can say is that, on numerous occasions throughout our deliberations, members raised concerns regarding notice-to-quit periods for tenancies of less than 12 months.”
“Amendment Nos 1 to 12 cover those matters to the Committee's satisfaction. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 13 and 14 relate to clause 7. The Committee has no position on amendment No 13 but supports the Minister's amendment No 14, as it was requested by us. The Committee queried the proposals set out in the Bill that landlords were to give two months' notice of rent increases. Members asked why that could not be three months' notice in order to be of more benefit to those in receipt of housing benefit. Officials confirmed that three months would, indeed, offer a more practical time frame, and we thank the Minister for tabling the amendment. The Committee was concerned that the amount of any rent increase was of as much concern as the frequency of the increases.”
“We hope that, after today, a number of those protections will be further improved. Amendment Nos 1 to 12 relate to clause 3. The Committee supports the Minister's amendments, as they were requested by the Committee, and we thank the Minister for tabling them. During our deliberations, the Committee discussed many matters in connection with clause 3, including the form and status of receipts and the timely provision of receipts. However, it became clear that the key matter was that the Committee wished to see a detailed receipt provided to tenants for all appropriate payments made in whole or in part in cash in connection with the granting, renewal or continuance of a private tenancy or any payment in satisfaction or part satisfaction of an obligation arising under a private tenancy and not just rent payments.”
“I will come back to that when we debate the group 2 amendments. Secondly, during Committee Stage, the Department commenced a public consultation on the notice to quit period in clause 11. The Committee was put in an extremely difficult position. Its deliberations were severely hampered, as the consultation ended only recently and, therefore, after the Committee had reported on the Bill. Again, that is an unusual situation, and it meant that the Committee could only consider the clause as drafted. The Committee sought its own legal advice on clause 11 but decided to reserve its position to allow the consultation to run its course, although, during the formal clause-by-clause process, we strongly reiterated our frustration at the turn of events. <BR /> <BR />The Bill already offers a range of protections for tenants and landlords.”
“Through its research and evidence, the Committee also considered the Bill in comparison with similar legislation in our neighbouring jurisdictions. <BR /> <BR />After considering its evidence, deliberating on the issues that were raised, taking advice from the Assembly Bill Office and querying many issues with departmental officials, the Committee agreed to clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and schedule 1. <BR /> <BR />Before turning to the specific amendments, I will take the opportunity to highlight two difficulties that the Committee faced during its deliberations. First, although the Committee finally agreed clause 9 and schedule 2, with regard to schedule 2, the Committee was put in a difficult position when, midway through deliberations, the Department produced a new enhanced schedule 2 to future-proof the legislation.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee also aimed to consider any potential unintended consequences of the Bill by finding a balance between protecting tenants and over-regulating, which may drive landlords from the sector, thus compounding housing problems. In response to its call for evidence, the Committee received 20 replies to its online survey and a further 13 written submissions. Responses were received from private landlords and tenants, councils, student unions and tenancy deposit scheme administrators, to name but a few. The Committee held 12 oral evidence sessions and considered the Bill at 17 meetings, and its formal clause-by-clause consideration took place on 11 January 2022. We considered the range of issues raised in both written and oral evidence with departmental officials through oral briefings and follow-up written responses.”
“On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Consideration Stage of the Bill. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, before turning to the amendments, I will say a few words about the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill. During its deliberations, the Committee bore it in mind that the private rented sector accounts for over 17% of all housing stock in Northern Ireland and that the Bill follows a series of reforms that have already been made to the regulation of the sector. We focused on the purpose of the Bill, which is to amend the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 as the first stage in a long-term programme of reform to make the private rented sector a safer and more secure housing option for a wide range of households. We also remained mindful that the sector is home to a considerable number of vulnerable households.”
“<BR /> <BR />The people of South Belfast have lost one of their greatest champions. Unionism has lost one of its greatest advocates. This party has lost one of its greatest servants, and I have lost a dear, dear friend.”
“He was confident in his unionism and his identity and was always prepared to provide leadership to keep Northern Ireland moving in the right direction. Let us all strive to honour his memory by working together to achieve that future that Christopher dedicated his career to advancing. <BR /> <BR />I thank all the parties for their kind words and moving tributes over the weekend. It was a mark of the man that he had friends on all sides of the Chamber. It is hard to imagine these Benches and this party without Christopher. His wit, humour and grace encouraged many of us through darkest times. I will be forever grateful for having the honour of calling Christopher my friend. I will never forget his continued encouragement and steadfast reassurance. I will never be able to fully repay his unwavering support and unimaginable kindness.”
“As a proud working-class man, Christopher championed the causes and issues that mattered most to his constituents. He was their voice, their advocate and their standard-bearer. <BR /> <BR />In January 2020, when elected to become Principal Deputy Speaker of the Assembly, he remarked how anything in politics was truly possible. It was beyond his wildest dreams that a working-class boy from Annadale could hold down one of the highest offices in this place. Christopher was determined to use his office not for self but to ensure that any young boy or girl from his background could too fulfil their potential and achieve their dreams. <BR /> <BR />The heartfelt tributes from across the political spectrum show Christopher's dedication to stretching himself to build a genuinely shared future.”
“<BR /> <BR />In life, people are born to take certain paths, and Christopher was born to be a public representative. It was a duty that he discharged with unwavering diligence, dedication and devotion. First elected to Belfast City Council in 2005, Christopher was at home in City Hall. He displayed a level of ability that was far beyond his age. His talents and attributes were quickly recognised, and he was elected as High Sheriff of Belfast in 2010 and Deputy Lord Mayor of Belfast in 2013. In 2016, Christopher was elected to represent South Belfast in the Northern Ireland Assembly, to serve the area that he was born and raised in and the community that meant so much to him. Christopher's joy came not in holding office but in how he could use that office to improve the everyday lives of those whom he was honoured to represent.”
“On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I rise to honour and give thanks for the life of our much-loved friend and esteemed colleague, Christopher Stalford. Words cannot adequately describe the sense of pain and loss that is felt on these Benches for a man who meant so much to so many of us. On behalf of the party, I send our deepest sympathies and express our heartfelt sorrow to his wife, Laura, his beautiful children and the wider Stalford family, especially his mum, on the loss of a man who was so utterly devoted to them. Nothing meant more to Christopher than his family. The pride and joy that he felt for them were evident in every conversation that we had. No one will feel the loss of Christopher more than his family. I trust and pray that God will draw near to them at this time of unimaginable heartbreak.”
“Much more is needed, not least of which is that a meaningful code needs to be produced. I urge the Minister to revisit the draft code and to make significant changes to it. Amendment No 5 provides, at least, some means to force the industry to take the code seriously.”
“Although not a perfect solution, it offers some measures of redress. A licensed premises that continually exploits people who cannot afford to gamble should be sanctioned. A licence holder who allows a person who has asked to be excluded to place a bet should face legal redress. Premises that do not verify the age of customers and are casual in fulfilling their obligations to stop underage gambling should not have a licence. Amendment No 5 seeks to give the power to a court to revoke or cancel a licence or permit issued under the 1985 Order when there are significant, continuing or multiple breaches of the code. The amendment would allow a person to apply to the court, under schedule 7 of the 1985 Order, to have a licence or permit revoked. Amendment No 5 by no means goes far enough.”
“Unless, through the threat of sanction, the industry is forced to exclude people and help them with their addiction, it will simply carry on doing what it has always done and ignore the issues of gambling harm. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 does not provide a rigorous civil or criminal sanction for licence holders who breach the code. At least, however, it is a tool that could be employed against licence holders who breach the code in a significant way or are guilty of multiple breaches. It allows for action to be taken before the licence or permit is renewed. If amendment No 5 is passed, the PSNI, a member of the public who has been harmed, the Department or even people who live in the vicinity of bookmaking premises could apply to the court to have the licence or permit revoked.”
“The Department's plan to address gambling harm is for people to be identified and then discreetly signposted to help — that is it. Would it not be better for the code to state that staff who identify affordability issues must not take money from such individuals? Should it not state that the gambling licence holder, having identified a person in the grip of gambling harm, must be proactive and exclude that person? Never mind the draft code having no sanctions for breaches, the code itself will do little to reform the gambling industry. The reality is that, even if the code required the gambling industry to exclude people facing gambling harm from premises, it would not do it. As already stated, the gambling industry needs losers.”
“Does the House seriously believe that, without sanction, the gambling industry here will stop giving free bets? Are we to believe that, if we just ask nicely, the scourge of VIP programmes and betting inducements will simply be stopped? That is just one part of the draft code; that approach is endemic. The Department seems to believe that the gambling industry is doing OK and that all that is needed is some way to weed out the unscrupulous bookie. <BR /> <BR />On gambling harm, the draft code states:”
“Even if the Department plans to properly inspect for compliance and enforce the code, the lack of ambition in the draft code is of particular concern. When speaking about amendment No 4, I referred to the gambling industry's inability to self-regulate. This code will do little to increase public confidence that the industry will be regulated here. <BR /> <BR />The draft code on marketing states:”
“In the absence of a regulator to ensure that the code is followed, will the Department send out officials to inspect premises to ensure that proper signage is in place, that age verification is practised, that staff are properly trained to identify gambling harm and to intervene if they are concerned about affordability?”
“On reading that introduction to the code, you might be forgiven for thinking that Northern Ireland does not have a gambling problem and that the only issue here is a few rogue traders. We all know that that is far from the truth. The draft code will do little to help to alleviate the highest prevalence of gambling harm in the UK. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 is by no means perfect, but it is a start. The amendment is an attempt to make up for the lack of any sanction in the Bill. If a licence or permit holder fails to uphold the code, the only proposed sanction is a breach that can be used as evidence in court to oppose the licence or permit being renewed. That is simply not good enough. There needs to be immediate sanction for serious or repeated breaches of the code. <BR /> <BR />The draft code presents its own problems.”