Deirdre Hargey
South Belfast · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“His double standards, including his condemnation of and opposition to equality and rights for our LGBTQ+ citizens, have caused real harm to others. The revelations about his double life expose the staggering hypocrisy of the DUP's moral facade. We need to know whether failing to act sooner left more vulnerable people at risk.”
“One week ago today, Jeffrey Donaldson was found guilty of 18 child sexual offences, including rape. That conviction was made possible only by the strength and resilience of the two victims who came forward and reported the abuse. Donaldson was an abuser. He abused children, but he also abused his position in politics and faith.”
“They now say that they knew about his behaviour, but, crucially, they did nothing to expose his inappropriate hypocrisy and double life. The 'Spotlight' programme and other reports have shown that senior members of the DUP — its most senior figures, including the then leader, Edwin Poots — were aware of serious issues and allegations abou…”
“It is therefore not credible to suggest that the intelligence agencies were blind to his compromised double standards and double life. <BR /> <BR />Those questions demand answers from the DUP leadership. They demand answers in the House from the deputy First Minister, who was closely associated with Donaldson.”
“It is clear that there is a huge disconnect between Whitehall and the reality that is being felt by people on the ground. A British Treasury policy that is managing decay, real-terms cuts and disastrous policy decisions such as Brexit or the funding of wars over public services comes on top of existing disparities between how public servi…”
“The answer is not the short-term fixes or cash injections that we have had in the past, which have allowed for the repeated Treasury script of record settlements and inability of the Executive to manage their finances — scripts that are often parroted in the Chamber.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,594 lines we hold for Deirdre Hargey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 34 of 52.
“I do not have the power to increase the amounts of the benefits by a different or greater amount in the annual uprating order. <BR /> <BR />The uprating order is the main statutory rule to provide for the increase in benefit rates. However, some technical provisions relating to annual uprating are required to be made by regulations and, therefore, cannot be included in the order. The debate therefore also includes the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 2021, which make the technical provisions required for the accurate implementation of the increased rates. The regulations are also made as a consequence of the uprating order. They will also include an increase in the personal expenses allowance for residents in care homes.”
“Corresponding provision here can therefore be made under the usual powers in the Social Security Administration (NI) Act 1992. <BR /> <BR />The British Government's commitment to the triple lock for the basic state pension and the new state pension means that, for 2021-22, the pensions will be uprated by 2·5%. To ensure that those in receipt of state pension credit see the benefit of the increase in the state pension, the cash increase in the basic state pension has been matched in the single rate of standard minimum guarantee of pension credit. That represents an increase of around 1·9%. The couples' rate of the standard minimum guarantee has also increased by 1·9%. <BR /> <BR />When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions makes an uprating order for Britain, my Department is empowered to make a corresponding order.”
“<BR /> <BR />In addition to certain benefits increasing in line with prices, the commitment to the triple lock continues to apply to the basic state pension and the new state pension. These pension payments are increased in line with the growth in earnings, the growth in prices or 2·5%, whichever is the highest. The growth in earnings is measured by the increase in average weekly earnings for the quarter ending the previous July. Due to the impact of COVID-19, earnings growth for the relevant period was negative. Therefore, to enable benefits linked to earnings to be increased this year, a Bill was introduced in Westminster to modify the uprating powers in the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The Bill received Royal Assent in November 2020.”
“That is measured by the growth in the consumer price index (CPI), which determines the amount by which the various rates of benefit should be increased, thereby allowing benefits to maintain their value against inflation. The percentage increase is determined by the CPI in the 12 months up to the previous September. The CPI indicated a positive growth of 0·5% for the period to the end of September 2020. For the 2021 uprating package, therefore, benefits linked to prices also increase by 0·5%. Generally, those are benefits that contribute towards extra costs arising from disability or health conditions, notably attendance allowance, disability living allowance and the personal independence payment, but they also include carer's allowance and additional state pension.”
“I am seeking the Assembly's approval for two rules that form the main part of the uprating package for 2021-22. The uprating package usually increases the rate of social security benefits, pension and lump sum payments each year in line with inflation. Uprating occurs around the beginning of the tax year, and these two rules came into operation in April 2021. <BR /> <BR />As most Members will be aware, my Department is empowered only to make a corresponding order when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions makes an uprating order in Britain. In relation to the annual uprating of benefits, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is required to undertake a review of the rates of the benefits in relation to the general level of prices.”
“I beg to introduce the Local Government (Meetings and Performance) Bill, which is a Bill to make provision relating to requirements as to meetings and performance of district councils.”
“I am glad that we have the Bill at this stage and that it is going to progress. Again, I thank the Chair, the Deputy Chair and all the Committee for the engagement. The work that we have been able to do together in making the amendments has made for a better and more balanced Bill. <BR /> <BR />I again thank the staff and officials from my Department. Carol has worked on the Bill since 2006. She probably thought it would never reach this stage, but, thankfully, it has. Liam and Suzanne have worked on it from around 2014. We thank the staff in the Bill Office, the Committee and those in the Assembly tonight for their support.”
“Subsequent reviews will take place no later than five years after the last report, with the inclusion of a regulatory power that will allow the Department to cease those reviews. That power cannot be used before the end of the period of 10 years from the date of Royal Assent, and regulations cannot be made unless approved by a resolution of the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I tabled amendment No 60 to remove the requirement at clause 36 to bring a removal of the additional restrictions at Easter into operation on the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That was included when there was a possibility of having those provisions in place before Easter of this year and is no longer necessary, because we have passed that date. <BR /> <BR />I conclude by extending my sincere thanks to everybody who has participated in the debate.”
“For those reasons, I do not support the amendment. <BR /> <BR />I move now to some of my own amendments. The Committee for Communities considered a number of areas in the Bill for which it requested clarification, and it has linked that to the complexity of the Bill. The Committee and I agreed amendment No 58, which introduces a new clause 32A. It places a duty on the Department to produce and publish guidance on the provisions of the final Act. I have also tabled amendment No 59, at the request of the Committee for Communities, to require the Department to carry out a review of the implementation of the final Act. The first review is to be carried out as soon as is practicable after three years following the commencement of the provisions.”
“An annual report on the liquor licensing system would place a significant burden on the Department's time and resources, and that would need to be looked at. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for my Department to be required to include some of the components of the report or to publish figures that would need to be provided by another Department. As has been said, the Department of Justice is responsible for the courts which actually do the licences. The figures for the licences that are in force are also subject to change as they are provided at a point in time, as I said. Licence holders have up to a year in which to renew their licences after the end of the licensing period. Some licences are granted for less than the licensing period. There is also no way of predicting how many there will be in the future.”
“It has, however, been estimated that a review of that magnitude would be expected to take longer to complete, and costs would need to be worked out. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment. It would not be practical to take it forward in the timescales. It would also enshrine timescales and scope of the review in law and, given the timescale set out in the amendment, could only result in the production of an extremely poor report. <BR /> <BR />Matthew has also tabled amendment No 46, which introduces a new clause 18B. That amendment will require the Department to produce an annual report on the operation of the liquor licensing system here and the number of pubs and off-licences in operation, along with a 10-year rolling forecast of those premises.”
“I have been advised by officials in procurement and consultancy that, given the complexity of such a review and the sheer size, scale and number of variables, pre-market engagement would be required. That would take somewhere between four and six months and would assist in the development of the terms of reference before going out to tender. I have also been advised that, for such a project, a multidisciplinary project team would be required that would include economists and experts in health and social harms, competition law and licensing. It is not likely that one consultancy firm would be equipped to carry out the entire project. The advice that I have received suggests that a scoping exercise would need to be carried out to enable a timescale and cost for such a review to be put in place.”
“That independent impact assessment relates to only one of the components detailed in the Member's amendment. It took about 11 months to complete and cost in the region of £21,000.”
“<BR /> <BR />Previous Ministers considered removing the surrender principle, and, indeed, an independent impact assessment was carried out a number of years ago by the then Minister, Margaret Ritchie, who was responsible for the then DSD. The report on the assessment showed that there was insufficient evidence to support the need for removal, and, because of the potential damage to existing businesses, a decision was taken not to take any action.”
“In a nutshell, that means that anyone who wants to apply for a pub or off-sales licence is required to hand over a current licence for either a pub or off-sales. As was said, the principle dates back to the early 1920s, and it had the intended effect of placing a cap on the number of pubs and off-sales here. It is an attempt to influence the health and social behaviours of consumers. Over the years, the cap on the number of pubs and off-sales has created a lucrative trade in licensing in the private sector. Therefore, there has always been an argument that removing the principle would devalue those businesses that had already invested in their licences, which are far too often recorded as assets in financial records.”
“Altogether, the articles that form the Licensing Order provide for the licensing system here. <BR /> <BR />The Member's amendment specifically states that the review should include:”
“They are also issued to stakeholders who request them and, again, are caveated that they are subject to variation over the years. There is no doubt that there is work to be done and improvements to be made to those parts of the system. <BR /> <BR />There are 38 articles in the Licensing Order that relate to who and what type of premises a court can grant a licence to, the court process of applying for a licence, including the grant renewal duration of the licence, and the type of information to be held by the courts. There are 38 articles in the general licensing system as part of the order. The order also contains another eight articles on permitted hours, a further 27 articles on the conduct of licensed premises, 20 articles on enforcement and more articles on miscellaneous provisions. There are 13 schedules to the order.”
“That said, if the amendment is voted down or not moved, I give a clear commitment to engage to see whether it can be included at Further Consideration Stage, if allowed by the Speaker, and to look at a better timeline in line with what we in the Department see as deliverable. <BR /> <BR />Although my Department is responsible for the policy and legislation on the retail sale of alcoholic drinks, the courts are responsible for issuing licences. Obviously, the records are held by the courts, and it would be for the Minister of Justice to publish those. As noted, I wrote to the Minister to follow up on that work. Some Members mentioned that the courts provide the Department with figures every year, albeit they are caveated as being taken at a point in time.”
“Again, thanks to everybody for their contributions. I will start with amendment No 45 that was tabled by Matthew O'Toole. If passed, it would require the Department for Communities to appoint an independent person to carry out a review of the licensing system, including the operation of the surrender principle for licences, no later than six months after the date of Royal Assent. I have a number of concerns about the feasibility of that amendment. I know that Matthew spoke to officials, and I asked my officials to take advice on whether what is being asked of the Department is achievable within the timescale that has been set out. While I agree with the point about the importance of pubs in communities that Matthew raised, I struggle to support the amendment as it cannot be delivered within the required time frame that has been set out.”
“I agree that, when developing policy, it is important to engage with young people about how it affects them. Again, I give particular thanks to the Education Authority's Youth Service, which facilitated engagements with young people as part of my Department's 2019 consultation on licensing laws.”
“I will be brief on this group. I thank the Chair, Deputy Chair and the whole Committee for their deliberations on this important part. By working together to improve the Bill, we have offered greater protections, particularly on adult supervision, and we will extend the date for events from May to September and look at day memberships and honesty boxes etc. <BR /> <BR />Whilst, as I stated, this is not within my remit, I support the call for minimum unit pricing for and call on the Health Minister to bring it forward urgently. I am hopeful that the last issues to be raised will be considered, debated and equality-screened so that we can look at the implication of any policy on minimum unit pricing. <BR /> <BR />Finally, a lot of Members mentioned how good it was that young people were involved.”
“<BR /> <BR />Those are the amendments in group 3.”
“Still on registered clubs, schedule 1(13) to the Registration of Clubs Order allows a non-member of a sporting club to pay a fee to use the club's facilities for a day. The club's committee determines which facilities can be used, and there is no need to be signed in or be in the company of a member, which is normally the case. The Committee for Communities highlighted concerns raised by the PSNI during its evidence session about the use of one-day club memberships. It was reported that a number of sporting clubs openly advertised for non-members to pay a small fee for the sole purpose of watching a televised sport or using the bar facilities, which is not the policy intent of the allowance. For that reason, I propose amendment No 62 to clarify the policy intent of the provision for one-day memberships.”
“That will allow young people who play at different levels in the same club to attend the relevant ceremonies. I also propose amendment No 55 to include a power that both the months and number of ceremonies can be amended by regulations. That will mean that any issues arising from the increase can be addressed fairly quickly. <BR /> <BR />Clause 30 is similar to clause 15 for prohibition of self-service in licensed premises in that it prohibits the supply of alcoholic drinks via any unsupervised means in a registered club. As was the case with clause 15, the draughtsperson's advice was that the drafting of clause 30 could be improved to better ensure its enforceability. I therefore propose amendment Nos 56 and 57.”
“Again, with clause 12 for licensed premises, amendment No 52 to clause 28 will allow a young person to attend a private function in a registered club with a parent or another young person who is also attending the function. <BR /> <BR />Clause 29 will allow under-18s to remain in the bar area of a sporting club up to 11.00 pm between 1 June and 31 August and to attend one awards ceremony at any time of the year. On consideration of the evidence provided to the Committee, I propose amendment No 53, extending the time period from 1 May until 30 September. That is to allow for participation in a range of evening activities provided by clubs. A further amendment, amendment No 54, will increase the maximum number of awards ceremonies to three a year.”
“The Minister of Health launched a public consultation on the new substance use strategy in October last year, and the consultation closed earlier this year, with the expected strategy going to the Executive and being published in the near future. The Health Minister has publicly committed to holding a public consultation on minimum unit pricing. That is a matter for the Department of Health, although I would like to see it brought forward as a matter of urgency. <BR /> <BR />Clause 27 is similar to clause 11 for underage functions in licensed premises in that it allows underage functions in registered clubs. Amendment No 51 will allow a young person to remain on the premises of a registered club while in the process of leaving or waiting to be collected.”
“<BR /> <BR />Clause 15 adds the new article to the Licensing Order prohibiting liquor licensing holders from selling alcoholic drinks via any unsupervised means. The Committee, at its evidence sessions with officials, sought assurances that so-called honesty boxes were captured in these provisions. Having confirmed that honesty boxes were captured, the draftsperson of the Bill advised that, on reflection, the clause should be redrafted. I therefore propose amendment Nos 40, 41, 42 and 43 at the request of the draftsperson to improve the drafting of the clause and to ensure its enforceability. <BR /> <BR />The Committee Chair has tabled amendment No 44 to introduce a new clause 17A, which places a statutory duty on the Department of Health to legislate for minimum unit pricing within three years of the Act coming into operation.”
“A further consequential amendment, amendment No 38, ensures that a relevant number of penalty points is attached to a licence where the licence holder has been found guilty of contravening any condition attached to underage functions. Clause 12 will allow a young person to remain on the licensed premises beyond 9.00 pm for a private function, provided that they are accompanied by a parent or someone with parental or caring responsibility and a substantial meal is being served. <BR /> <BR />The Committee deliberations on the Bill included some discussion on young people who may not have someone fulfilling the role of the parent, and, with the agreement of the Committee, I propose amendment No 39 to extend the provision to allow a young person to be in the company of a parent or another child attending the function.”
“During its scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee for Communities questioned whether an underage function would need to stop earlier to allow young people to be off the premises by 1.00 am. Advice sought by my officials has confirmed that the current draft would mean that the licence holder was committing an offence if an under-18-year-old was still on the premises, albeit in the process of leaving, after 1.00 am, and that is clearly not the policy intent. I therefore propose amendment No 37, which will clarify the policy intent of the provision, allowing a young person to remain on licensed premises while in the process of leaving and/or waiting to be collected.”
“The amendment would allow the clause to operate as originally intended in order to safeguard the young people who are attending a function. Consequential amendment No 36, would make it clear that a licence holder who contravenes any condition relating to an underage function is guilty of an offence.”
“Clause 11 allows a court to make an order that specifies that part of a premises is suitable for an underage function. A court must be satisfied that the part of the premises in question has been structurally adapted for the purpose of holding functions, that appropriate steps have been taken to secure the safety of under-18s and that under-18s do not have access to other parts of the premises that are used for the sale of alcohol. A court will then be able to make an authorisation for a specific function. An authorisation can specify the hours for the function, but it cannot go beyond 1.00 am. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 35 would allow the court, when granting an authorisation for a specific underage function, to attach conditions to the authorisation.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 33, tabled by the Chair of the Committee, proposes to introduce new clause 8B, which would insert a restriction to prohibit an occasional licence being granted for a place licensed as a local producer's premises that is also in receipt of a suitability order to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises. I do not support the amendment. However, should amendment No 33 be passed, I have tabled a correcting amendment No 34 to improve the drafting and to ensure that it is compatible with the Licensing Order. My amendment No 61 is simply an update to the text of schedule 1 and will be necessary if amendment No 19 is passed.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 29, tabled by Rachel Woods, proposes to amend Committee amendment No 19 to the effect that the permitted hours of local producer premises should be changed from 4.00 pm until 10.00 pm to 12 noon until 11.00 pm. As with amendment No 28, I do not support that amendment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 30 and 32 are, again, technical and correctional amendments to amendment No 19, and I tabled them in order to ensure a consistent approach throughout the Bill. Again, I will not prolong the debate by going through them individually.”
“<BR /> <BR />Should Members decide that the Committee's amendment No 19 should be made, I have tabled a number of mainly technical and correctional amendments to amendment No 19 — amendment Nos 20 to 28 — that will ensure a consistent approach through the Licensing Order and improve the enforceability of the provisions. I therefore do not wish to prolong the debate by commenting on each of those amendments. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 28, tabled by Kellie Armstrong, proposes to amend the Committee amendment No 19, which would introduce a new clause 8A on sales and consumption on premises. Kellie's amendment proposes that the permitted hours for such premises should be changed from 4.00 pm until 10.00 pm to 11.00 am until 11.00 pm. I do not support amendment No 19, and, therefore, I do not support Kellie's amendment.”
“Local brewers make a good contribution to the sector and to the wider tourism sector. Microbreweries and those pubs are an increasing phenomenon over recent years, and, obviously, the existing legislation has never reflected that. That is why I have tabled amendments to work with that sector, which is committed to and passionate about what it delivers. I want to continue to work with it in the time ahead, but I believe that, in seeking advice on the issues, we need to consult further on any major change in legislation. Some Members raised fairness, and the other considerations and concerns that have been raised need to be considered as part of that consultation. I am willing to work with the sector and the community more widely as we move through that.”
“That is why we need to give more consideration to the issues. I recognise that there are concerns. We have moved some way with this Bill in providing additional allowances for microbreweries so that they are able to sell their products, go to fairs and have tours. However, recognising some of the concerns that may be raised, we need to do more work to scope them out. That is what I am asking for.”
“Kellie is looking to come in as well. Do you want me to respond to that first?”
“Evidence shows that there is a link between an increase in the availability of alcohol and an increase in consumption, and between an increase in consumption and an increase in the levels of alcohol-related harm. The strength of the alcohol produced in local producers' premises has also been raised as a potential health concern, given that it is often much stronger than other beers and ales. I do not support the amendment.”
“The overheads for local producers will be less than those for pubs, and a local producer will not have to prove that the number of similar premises in the vicinity is inadequate, which a pub has to do when applying for a licence. That could result in a number of mini pubs being allowed to operate in local producers' premises in close proximity to each other. The Committee and, I believe, Members have received a number of representations from licence holders asking that such an amendment is not taken forward for, I suspect, the same reasons. <BR /> <BR />There is also a concern about the potential negative impact on health in both the short and long term.”
“I have some concern about this amendment due to the fact that there have been no consultations, impact assessments or screening exercises carried out. This is a fundamental change to the licensing system, and I caution against making such a change through an amendment to a Bill. The impact of the amendment is unknown, and, given the significant investment that many licence holders have made in their businesses, allowing, in effect, a mini pub in local producers' premises may have an adverse impact on local pubs, particularly small rural pubs in the vicinity of a local producer's premises, as they could end up in direct competition.”
“Amendment Nos 17 and 18 from the Committee are consequential to amendment No 8 and add the offence to the list of those that attract penalty points. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 19, tabled by the Chair of the Committee, is a significant divergence from the policy that was previously agreed by the Executive. The amendment permits the sale of alcohol for consumption on local producer premises. The amendment will allow a local producer to apply to a court for a suitability order for their premises for the sale and consumption of alcohol and, following the granting of such an order, to apply for authorisation to sell alcohol that is produced on the premises for consumption on the premises between 4.00 pm and 10.00 pm.”
“Therefore, I do not support amendment No 10 and subsequent amendment Nos 11 and 12 to clause 8. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 13 is a technical amendment to improve the drafting of the Bill should amendment No 19 be passed. The Committee's amendment No 14 defines a tour for the purposes of a person receiving a sample or measure. The Bill draftsperson has considered the amendment and believes that it is unnecessary. The advice that was received is that the only reason for defining an ordinary word in legislation is to give it special meaning that is narrower or broader than the natural meaning. However, should the amendment pass, there will be a need for a correcting amendment. For that reason, I am proposing amendment No 15. Amendment No 16 is a consequential amendment to ensure that the policy of clause 8 is achieved.”
“Amendment No 10, which was tabled by the Committee Chairperson, inserts a new paragraph in article 42 of the Licensing Order 1996, which provides for the permitted hours of licensed premises. The amendment provides for permitted hours for the provision of samples and measures at local producer premises as being between 10.00 am and 7.00 pm. <BR /> <BR />In clause 8 as introduced, the provision of samples following a tour of local producer premises can take place at any time during the permitted off-sale hours of 8.00 am to 11.00 pm. I do not believe that there is a need to restrict the provision of samples to between 10.00 am and 7.00 pm. If tours take place later in the evening for a visiting group of tourists in the summer months, for example, the ability to offer samples as an inducement to sales would be taken away.”
“Given the legal advice that we have sought, it is important that, in not taking the amendment now, we consult further on the issue. I have said that I will do that over the coming weeks, and the consultation will be issued so that the regulations can then be changed. <BR /> <BR />In tabling amendment No 8, which relates to local producers, the Committee was concerned about the number of samples that a local producer could serve, particularly given that they will have a range of products to offer. Amendment No 8 has been tabled on that issue. <BR /> <BR />I am proposing an alternative amendment No 9, which will allow for the maximum amount of alcohol that could be provided to any one person, whether in one serving or more than one serving.”
“Legal advice has confirmed that cinemas could be included in the definition of places of public entertainment by means of regulations. Therefore, I agreed with the Committee that my Department should carry out a short and focused public consultation exercise. I have given commitments and I have lived up to previous commitments that were given to the Committee, so there is no abdication from me on those commitments. Indeed, preparatory work for that consultation is already well under way, and it will begin in a couple of weeks, in early July. I wanted to give clarity on that. In considering the responses to the consultation and subject to no serious concerns being raised, regulations will be brought to the Assembly in the autumn. For that reason, I do not support the amendment, although I can understand the reasons for tabling it.”
“We have listened to some of those concerns tonight, but, externally, arguments have been made that there are few entertainment options for families or people who prefer not to be in the company of those who are consuming alcohol or in the presence of alcohol itself. There is also the potential for the wider cinema sector, including staff, to hold very strong views on the issue, one way or the other. I feel that there is a need to consult on the matter. <BR /> <BR />There has been no public consultation and nor have any impact assessments been carried out on the amendment. That would result in a change to the Licensing Order 1996. The amendment would be irreversible were there to be any unintended consequences, which is also a concern.”
“Anybody else can join us. Jim, you can have tea if you want. It does not need to be alcohol. <BR /> <BR />I turn to issues raised in the debate. Amendment No 7, tabled by Claire Sugden, would introduce a new clause 7A, "Places of public entertainment: inclusion of cinemas". It will add cinemas to the list of venues that are defined as places of public entertainment under article 2 of the Licensing Order 1996 and are, therefore, eligible to apply for a licence to sell alcohol on the premises. In discussions with the Committee on the issue, my departmental officials made clear concerns regarding primary legislation that would allow drink to be sold in cinemas without public consultation.”
“Thanks very much to everybody for their contributions and even amendments. I do not know about anybody else, but, when we finally get this legislation through, in whatever form it takes, I am going for a pint with Pat Catney for the craic.”
“We want legislation that tries to do both. The groups of amendments that will be debated later this evening consider some of the health impacts.”
“On the health issues that were raised, I reiterate that the law has not been changed in over 25 years. There was broad public support, not just in the hospitality sector, that change and modernisation needed to happen to bring the law into the 21st century, and I am committed to doing that. That said, I want to offer a balance going forward. Some people feel that we are going too far; some feel that we have not gone far enough. I want to find a balance in the modest changes that we are making. Of course there is an issue with alcohol consumption. The statistics show, however, that 70% of alcohol consumed is bought in off-licences, in uncontrolled premises. That was touched on by a Member. <BR /> <BR />In looking at the issues, we are trying to strike a balance between modernisation and addressing the health implications.”