Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): I welcome Professor Sir Michael McBride, Chief Medical Officer, and Gary Maxwell from the health development policy branch at the Department. You are both very welcome. Thank you for coming.

Professor Sir Michael McBride (Department of Health): We had to scamper up the hill.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): We are way ahead. I can tell you that that is the very first time that I have ever had to say that in this Committee.

Professor Sir Michael McBride: I was taking bets earlier on whether the session would be postponed or late. I was wrong.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): I do not know whether I will engage in the gambling activity. [Laughter.]

Anyway, I will hand over to you for some opening remarks, and we will then go straight to questions.

Professor Sir Michael McBride: Thank you very much indeed for the invitation to brief the Committee on minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol in Northern Ireland. By way of introduction, I am Michael McBride, Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland. I am supported by Gary Maxwell from the Department's health development policy branch, who will be known to many of you.

The Minister has set out in correspondence to the Committee his position on the topic, and Committee members attended an event in the Long Gallery on 19 November, which was hosted by Chest, Heart and Stroke and the Noncommunicable Diseases Alliance. I thought that it might be helpful to set out my professional position on the proposed legislation and the evidential basis from a public health perspective. Gary will then provide some policy context. We are happy to take questions and comments that the Committee might have.

At the outset, it is important to note that the consumption of alcohol causes real harm to individuals, families and communities in Northern Ireland. Members will be acutely aware of that. That is why the four UK Chief Medical Officers produced guidance on low-risk alcohol consumption. It is not guidance on safe levels of consumption, as the evidence is increasingly clear that there is no safe level of consumption; rather, it provides advice on levels of consumption that are unlikely to result in significant harm.

For adults, to keep health risks from alcohol to a low level, the guidance is that it is safest not to regularly drink more than 14 units a week. That reflects the fact that alcohol is not an ordinary commodity and that its sale is highly regulated for a reason. Drinking above safe limits can have a negative impact on people's physical and mental health, on family relationships, on communities, on crime and community safety, and on our economy.

Research commissioned by the Department, on which Gary will expand, estimates that alcohol misuse costs Northern Ireland up to £900 million every year. In addition, there are unacceptable health inequalities in that area. Alcohol-specific mortality in our most deprived areas is almost four and a half times that in the least deprived areas.

The University of Sheffield's September 2025 report, 'Estimating the burden of alcohol on the health of Northern Ireland', posits that there are at least 676 alcohol-related deaths a year. That takes account of deaths that are caused solely by alcohol consumption, which makes up about half of those. A third are due to alcoholic liver disease, and there are others where alcohol plays a contributory role. The report also demonstrates the substantial contribution that alcohol makes to cancer risks, with 127 people dying each year from cancers related to alcohol consumption.

The report also points to the 7,426 alcohol-related hospital admissions each year, at a cost of some £19 million. However, hospitals are often the very last place to see the harm that is caused by alcohol. We know that harmful use of alcohol brings distress and suffering for individuals and families, particularly children in homes where parental alcohol use is taking place. Such harms are extensive, and the trauma can span generations, with negative physical and mental-health outcomes.

Earlier modelling shows that alcohol-attributed deaths in hospital admissions are concentrated in increasing and higher-risk drinkers, with 76% of all deaths and 61% of all the hospital admissions that I have just referred to due to alcohol, coming from the heaviest-drinking 3% of the population. From a wider health perspective, alcohol, as you will know, is a group 1 carcinogen, like tobacco. It is causally linked to seven types of cancer. Heavy consumption also weakens the immune system and reduces our ability to cope with infectious diseases.

Alcohol has long been an accepted part of Northern Ireland's social and cultural life. Seventy-eight per cent of us consume alcohol, and perhaps, to some extent, we have become desensitised to the harm that it can result in. To put that in context, however, each year, alcohol causes twice as many deaths as illicit drugs in Northern Ireland, which is a sobering statistic. In Health, regrettably, much of our activity is inevitably focused on addressing the harms of alcohol use after the damage has been done. The prevention of those harms is a much more difficult area to navigate. The evidence, however, points strongly to pricing initiatives, and particularly minimum unit pricing, as providing one of the best ways of preventing harmful alcohol consumption.

The support for minimum unit pricing legislation is evident amongst leading public health experts. In its report, 'No place for cheap alcohol', the World Health Organization (WHO) outlines the potential benefits of minimum- unit pricing and recommends it as a cost-effective way of reducing alcohol consumption and harm, when combined with other policies to reduce harm. The WHO also notes that policies that increase alcohol prices delay the initiation of alcohol use amongst young people in particular, delay progression towards consumption among young people of larger amounts of alcohol, and reduce heavy episodic use of alcohol among young people. Again, that is a very important benefit of such legislation.

There is also clear evidence of the effectiveness of minimum unit pricing from various modelling and evaluation studies, particularly in Scotland, where legislation was introduced in 2018. That led to a 3% reduction in alcohol sales, the majority of that in off-sales. There were larger reductions in drinking among heavier drinkers, which led to a 13% drop in deaths that were wholly attributable to alcohol, amounting to what was estimated to be 120 deaths a year.

The Minister regularly raises the health inequalities that we continue to see in relation to alcohol-related harms. I know that the Health Committee has considered that topic and its impact in its various guises. A recent Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) analysis showed that people without formal qualifications, who make up about a fifth of our population, made up 41·4% of alcohol-specific deaths. In the case of economically inactive individuals, who make up about a quarter of our overall population, there was again an over-representation in alcohol-specific deaths of some 50·5%. The strongest predictor of alcohol death is unemployment. Deaths among social housing residents account for 35% of deaths.

Alcohol, therefore, has a hugely disproportionate impact on people who live in socio-economic deprivation. In Northern Ireland, from 2015 until 2022, in the 15 to 64 age group, alcohol-specific deaths were the fourth leading cause of death and accounted for 9·6% of male deaths and 7·8% of female deaths. I have worked for many years in the health service, and I have witnessed, at first hand, the harms of alcohol. In your constituency work, you will only be too aware of those harms, yet I still find those statistics truly shocking.

The Minister regularly references the need to reduce demand on our health service. To support that, clinicians like Roger McCorry, the hepatologist and alcohol lead in the Belfast Trust, has voiced support for minimum unit pricing, as has the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

The Committee has previously taken evidence, and it may wish to hear directly from those important voices. From my professional perspective, minimum unit pricing is not a panacea for all alcohol-related harms, and there continues to be a need for investment in services, particularly for those with alcohol dependency. However, in my professional view, the minimum unit price is a highly targeted policy and an opportunity to make a meaningful difference that should not be missed, which will bring benefits for the health service, but also, more importantly, reduce the harm to individuals, families and communities across the region. I will now hand over to Gary.

Mr Gary Maxwell (Department of Health): I head up the health development policy branch in the Department. From a strategic point of view, I look after the preventing harm and empowering recovery strategy, which is the substance abuse strategy. As Michael said, while our focus often turned to drugs, the strategy recognises that alcohol is our preferred drug in Northern Ireland and causes more harm than illicit and illegal drugs. Through the strategy, we made the case to tackle alcohol's availability and accessibility through pricing and other mechanisms, as well as improving treatment and support for those who need it most.

The minimum unit price for alcohol is a population health measure that sets the minimum price that can be charged per unit of alcohol, which is about 8 milligrams or 10 millilitres of alcohol in any alcohol product in the on-trade and off-trade. It ensures that alcoholic drinks cannot be sold at a lower price, which is the minimum unit price multiplied by the number of units in the product. As Michael has set out, research and evaluation show that minimum unit price targets very cheap, heavily discounted or loss-leader products, such as own-brand spirits, high-strength beers and white ciders, which have very high alcohol content and tend to be consumed by the heaviest drinkers.

MUP is unlikely to affect the price of drinks in pubs and clubs. For example, at a 65p MUP, a pint of Guinness could not be sold below £1.50, or a 13% bottle of wine for less than £6.34, and you will not find those prices anywhere in our on-trade at the moment. The impact will be on off-sales trade. MUP has been under consideration for a number of years. There was an evidence base and support for MUP in the preventing harm and empowering recovery strategy, which included an action to consult on its introduction in Northern Ireland. The consultation was undertaken, and a summary of the responses was published in 2023.

At the same time, we recommissioned the University of Sheffield to undertake an updated modelling using health and price data in Northern Ireland. The study suggested that MUP would lead to a reduction of alcohol-related harm, including death, hospital admissions, alcohol-related crimes and lower rates of absenteeism and presenteeism in the workplace.

Of course, the impact depends on the level at which the MUP is set. For example, a 65p MUP is estimated to reduce alcohol-related consumption by 8·5%, with the majority of that coming in increasing-risk and higher-risk drinkers, and that is the population that the policy targets. It increases the spend by moderate drinkers by only 1·9%, and 2·3% for increasing-risk drinkers, but it reduces spend for high-risk drinkers because they reduce the amount they spend on the products. It will reduce alcohol-related deaths by about 82 per year and admissions to hospital by 3,482. It will reduce crime by 3,188 offences per year, and absences will be cut by 60,000 days per year, which could result in healthcare savings of £117·4 million over 20 years.

It is important to note that the modelling predicts that it takes time to accrue the full benefits of MUP. The fact that we have seen benefits in Scotland is a positive sign because it is early and the harm takes a longer time to accumulate.

As Michael said, we have really good evidence from the five-year evaluations in Scotland and Wales and the work in Ireland since MUP was introduced in 2022. That all shows that MUP has had an impact on the sale of cheap high-strength products, particularly in Scotland, where a really comprehensive analysis has shown an estimated reduction in alcohol-attributable deaths by comparison to what would have occurred in the absence of MUP.

Importantly, and often, we hear counterpoints against MUP, such as that it will increase crime and people will move to abusing other substances, but there is no evidence of that in the Scottish or Welsh evaluations. It is not to say that the policy is perfect, and there are pieces in there that need to be picked up and thought about, particularly for dependent drinkers, who are a slightly different category, but they have not shown those negative impacts. There are evaluations from other places around the world. Canada and Russia show positive results, but the system of alcohol licensing is slightly different, and that needs to be taken into account.

A full options paper was considered by the Minister, who has subsequently said that he believes that minimum unit pricing is a key mechanism to reduce alcohol-related harm in Northern Ireland. As a cross-cutting issue, legislation to bring MUP forward requires the support of the Executive and subsequent debate in the Assembly. It is important to acknowledge that the timescales are tight for progressing this in the current mandate, given where we are. Should the Minister be unable to take the legislation forward, he is required to make a statement to the Assembly by 6 April 2026, based on clause 21 of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, as to why he has not been able to do so. However, the Minister has said that he will continue to support the introduction of MUP as a critical step towards reducing alcohol-related harm, particularly the health inequalities around alcohol that exist in Northern Ireland.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Thank you very much. That was very interesting, thorough and informative. I am trying to calculate how long I have been an MLA, but in whatever period of time that is, I have never seen a piece of potential legislation where the evidence, the science and the benefits have been as positive as what you have alerted us to today. I have read the study from Sheffield University and engaged with other groups, and I take your point that there are some things that need to be worked through, but, on the whole, the evidence from the jurisdictions where MUP has been introduced — Wales, Scotland, the South — has been really positive in dealing with the issues that it is meant to, such as having an impact on our alcohol dependency, reducing hospital admissions, and having an impact on crime, our court system and our economy through days lost at work.

Today, the Committee visited Antrim Area Hospital A&E to talk to nurses about the violence and aggression that they face. The comment was made that, in the majority of cases, it comes from people who are intoxicated with high levels of alcohol or drugs.

I applaud the Minister for his determination to tackle health inequalities, and here is a piece of legislation that clearly shows that it will have an impact on the most socially deprived areas of our society. Gary quoted the Minister's own words, which I am going to repeat, because I think it is important:

in the North —

Dr McBride said that it is an:

Therefore, the key question for the Committee is why we are sitting here talking about something that we want to see, rather than something that we are seeing coming through the Committee and on to the Floor of the Assembly to do good for our population?

Professor Sir Michael McBride: You have very aptly highlighted the evidence base and the impact that this will have. It is a very targeted intervention that will specifically target problem drinkers, and it will greatly reduce the pressures on our health service and the cost to our health service but also the impact on individuals, families and communities. It is evidence-based, and, as Gary said, it will take at least 10 years before we see the full impact. However, the fact is that we are seeing the impacts in Scotland after five years, even with the inflationary erosion of the 50p unit price that was put in place in 2018, which has now increased to 65p. That early evidence and real-world experience is very reaffirming. I equate it to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. We secured support from the Committee and the Executive to take forward a legislative consent motion to ensure that we protect our young people from the harmful impact of tobacco and vapes.

Alcohol is another group 1 carcinogen, and we have summarised the harms. As Gary said, because the issue is cross-cutting, it requires Executive agreement. While I am not party to Executive consideration and discussions, the Minister has been clear that he has not, at this point in time, secured Executive agreement. In this mandate, we are essentially running very tight for time. It is still possible to get it through in the mandate if we are able to secure Executive agreement, but that is proving challenging at this point.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): On the process, Gary, I am astounded that this does not have wholehearted Executive support, so it would be interesting to hear the arguments for not allowing the legislation to go forward. Are you saying that, if the Minister does not get Executive support, he will come to the Assembly and give the reason for that? Does that open up a debate?

Mr Maxwell: He has to make a statement to the Assembly, which, I assume, allows for questions and answers after that as part of the process. He will set out where he has got to with the process and will probably set out that, if it is not possible to do it in this mandate, we should return to it, given the evidence base. He has to work to the deadline of 6 April.

Professor Sir Michael McBride: I was looking back at some of the previous missed opportunities in this area. As Gary said, based on the evidence base, I first advocated this as a public health intervention 12 years ago. I did media interviews at the time. We were actually in advance of other parts of these islands in proposing it, but, for many reasons, we were not able to take it through the Executive. Obviously, for quite a number of those years, there was not an Executive in place. To me, it feels like a potential missed opportunity. If we had put the legislation in place 10 years ago, lives would have been saved, harm would have been prevented and we would have avoided costs to our health service. You can do the maths on that as well as I can. We still have time in the mandate, but it is now extremely tight, and it would be regrettable if this opportunity were to be missed. The evidence base is now even stronger than it was 10 years ago.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): I will go further than saying that it would be a missed opportunity. I am the Chair of the Health Committee. All of us here are trying to help the Minister to help our population live a healthier and better life, and we are being presented with a clear opportunity to do that. I do not have the agreement of the Health Committee to say this, so I will say it in a personal capacity: it would be much more than a missed opportunity. It would be a dereliction of duty on the part of all of us in this Assembly if this legislation does not come before us before the end of this mandate.

Mr Donnelly: As a nurse who worked for many years in the health service — not as many as you, Michael — I have seen the effects on the people who have had these conditions and have had multiple injuries related to alcohol, and I have seen the effect on A&Es when people arrive intoxicated. We met staff today who talked about the high level of violent assaults on healthcare staff that are related to drugs and alcohol. There is a myriad of problems that, in my view, this legislation would help. The evidence is very strong. I attended that event in November, and I found the evidence very convincing. I am absolutely convinced by the evidence that this would have a positive effect in Northern Ireland. I have met lots of groups, and the Non-communicable Disease Alliance and a lot of other health groups have highlighted the fact that this would have a benefit in Northern Ireland. What is your view of the arguments against it? Looking at this, I cannot see any obvious argument jumping out at me. What is your view of the arguments against this, and how do you rate them?

Professor Sir Michael McBride: Again, I have engaged with a range of parties and stakeholders in relation to this. All of the evidence, research and modelling point to effectiveness as a targeted, proportionate measure to address the harms caused by alcohol. I have not seen or heard in any of those discussions or discourses any compelling case made as to why we would not introduce the legislation — subject to Executive consideration, approval and debate in the Assembly, of course.

Building on the Chair's comments, where we have evidence of an intervention that is effective and a building body of evidence of its effectiveness and the impact that it has, I agree that we both, as a doctor and a former nurse, have professional responsibilities to advocate for that. However, there is a moral imperative to ensure that we take those actions to protect those who are addicted to or are consuming harmful amounts of alcohol and reduce the knock-on consequences for their families and communities and the wider consequences for health and social care costs and costs to our criminal justice system and to the economy. I agree with the Chair: there is a moral imperative to take this legislation forward.

Mr Maxwell: Some of the arguments put forward against it can be, first —you mentioned this earlier — dependent drinkers will not stop drinking based on the price. It is clear that the target of this is not dependent drinkers. Dependent drinkers need treatment and support. It is aimed at harmful and hazardous drinkers. Colin Angus made a really good point at that event: what it can do is stop creating the dependent drinkers of the future by intervening on harmful and hazardous drinkers. That is really important to note.

The other concern that people raise is the impact on lower income groups. Our point is that those on lower incomes who drink are those who substantially bear the brunt of the harm currently. Minimum unit pricing is actually helpful to them reducing the harm that they face. It is very targeted; much more targeted than a tax, which is across the piece. We also hear that it impacts moderate drinkers, but the modelling actually shows really limited impact on moderate drinkers. Reducing some moderate drinking is not a bad thing, when one looks at the evidence, but the increased spending of 1·9% is very limited as regards impact.

Professor Sir Michael McBride: We are all acutely aware of the cost-of-living crisis and the impact that that is having, but there are some spurious arguments being made that this would increase the costs of alcohol and people would switch from buying food to buying alcohol. The evidence is that, in areas of socio-economic deprivation, people spend less money on alcohol. They buy less alcohol in general. However, if you look at problem drinkers, there is a disproportionate number of people who drink at harmful and hazardous levels living in areas of socio-economic deprivation, as is highlighted in the statistics. There is a misunderstanding about some aspects of the evidence and the impact that it will have: that, somehow or other, it will cause a disproportionate impact on people who drink at moderate levels. It will not have that impact, so it is, perhaps, a misunderstanding of the evidence.

Mr Donnelly: I have heard it claimed that people do not believe the evidence from Scotland. In terms of public health policy, how strong do you see the evidence from Scotland being?

Professor Sir Michael McBride: As we have said already, it will take 10 years. We are very clear on that. It will take 10 years before we see the full impact. The fact that in Scotland we are seeing a 3% reduction in alcohol sales, a more than 4% reduction in hospital admissions and a 13% reduction in deaths — that is 120 fewer deaths a year — five years after the introduction of a piece of legislation is impressive. That is compelling. Wales shows positive trends in the right direction, but the data is not as robust as in Scotland. Looking south of the border, in 2022 compared with 2019, although the pandemic was in the middle of it there for behavioural change etc, the South has seen a 5% reduction in alcohol sales in some early data from the Beaumont Hospital. Again, that is early data that shows a reduction in ED attendances directly as a consequence to alcohol. I think that evidence base is compelling, it is strengthening and it is likely to strengthen further. I am certainly sufficiently convinced by the evidence that I have read to recommend to the Minister that this is legislation that I would commend to the Executive.

Mr Maxwell: To pick up on that, I know that some concerns were raised about an issue that an MSP referred some of the reporting of the Scottish evaluation to the UK Statistics Authority. It is worth quoting that Sir Robert Chote responded to say:

They did change some of the wording. When you talk about deaths, you cannot say that somebody definitely did not die. Do you know what I mean? You have to estimate that that person would have died, because you do not know the wider circumstances. There was some clarification around the wording of the estimated number of deaths, as opposed to being very directive. That has been picked up in the language and, in response to that, Professor Sir Michael Marmot, Professor Sir Ian Gilmore and Professor Martin McKee all wrote in support of the Scottish evaluation, so a range of public health experts wrote in on that basis. I know that Ian presented to the Social Development Committee before, so that is how long ago that was.

Professor Sir Michael McBride: It was 10 or 11 years ago that Prof Ian Gilmore and I presented evidence to that Committee on this very issue and on the evidence base. The evidence, at this point in time, is irrefutable on the benefits associated with this.

Mr Donnelly: The evidence is irrefutable?

Professor Sir Michael McBride: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Just anecdotally, I was at Nicola Sturgeon's book signing event recently, and she was asked from the floor about her biggest and best policy achievement, and she mentioned this piece of legislation because of the impact that it had on saving lives in Scotland. Not everyone, including me, agrees with Nicola Sturgeon's politics, but I thought that that was a very impactful statement that, out of all the work that went on in Scotland, she picked that piece of legislation out.

Miss McAllister: Has this actually been brought to the Executive yet by the Minister?

Professor Sir Michael McBride: Yes. Again, from my understanding, I think three papers have been presented to the Executive. To be honest, I do not attend Executive meetings, so I do not know to what extent it has been considered.

Miss McAllister: So it has not gone to a vote? It has just not got onto the agenda? Is it another issue that is being blocked?

Professor Sir Michael McBride: Again, I am not party to the details. I know that three papers have gone to the Executive. I know there have been discussions, but I do not know how extensive those discussions have been. I know that there has been correspondence from the Minister — and, indeed, from other Executive Ministers to our Minister — about the proposed legislation.

Miss McAllister: Have the papers that have gone to the Executive contained that irrefutable evidence, as you described it, within the information?

Professor Sir Michael McBride: I have certainly provided my advice to the Minister and, obviously, any papers to the Executive would include that advice.

Miss McAllister: Before the Committee meeting, we had the all-party group on stroke, and Colin Angus from the University of Sheffield was there presenting some of his findings. One of the things that I found interesting was that this would not have an impact on hospitality because of the impact on the cost of a pint, for example, but that it would generally have a significant impact on items such as cider — those from more low-income communities who are already dependent on alcohol. Has that been one of the arguments? It is really important to highlight again how it is not targeting dependence; it is actually targeting the future. If this were to come through, would we see additional support region-wide for those who are already dependent on alcohol?

Mr Maxwell: Certainly, we would make the policy aim clear, which is to reduce the harm in increasing- and increased-risk drinkers, because that is where the evidence is quite clear. Dependent drinkers, as I said, are a different category and require different supports. That is not to say that we could not stop creating a cohort of dependent drinkers in the future. Obviously, that would be the policy aim. What is really important is that MUP is not a panacea and will not, by itself, solve our alcohol problems in Northern Ireland. We are taking forward a programme, and I think the Committee got a written update recently on our wider substance use strategy. Within that, there is a programme of work to look at how we improve our services. Obviously, that is difficult in the budget environment that we are in, but it is really important. If you look at the work being funded under PEACE PLUS, particularly around the community detox approach, that is really where you start to get the impact of bringing detox services and treatment into communities to allow people to access those, rather than going into specialist services. There is a piece of work that will happen about that anyway, but it is helpful to target the folks who are dependent, because MUP is not the solution for that cohort.

Professor Sir Michael McBride: You have made a very valid point, because that is part of the confusion. The misunderstanding is that, somehow or other, minimum unit pricing will benefit people with alcohol dependency, and it will not. As Gary has said, people with alcohol dependency need treatment and support. We need to have more services. A recent review of alcohol treatment support services has recently been published, and it contains the commissioning framework and the implementation plan that Gary has mentioned. We need better integration between community services, community addiction services, detoxification services and mental health services, and that is challenging in the current resourcing climate. However, there is certainly more we can do to target and support individuals with alcohol dependency. Subject to Executive consideration and approval of the legislation, we would be monitoring the impact on those with alcohol dependency, because we would not wish there to be any negative impact on them, and we would keep a close eye on that.

Miss McAllister: Thank you. It is important to highlight the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency's stats that could be correlated to over 341 direct alcohol deaths. That is not the true figure for deaths that can be linked back to alcohol; it is much higher. It is important to put on record that the Alliance Party supports the introduction of minimum unit pricing, and I hope that it gets the Executive's approval.

Professor Sir Michael McBride: The Committee's support will hopefully help the Executive to look favourably on the proposal.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): I will be suggesting that we write to the Executive to support the Minister.

Mr Chambers: Some of my questions have been answered. The 3% of the population who are the core drinkers can be separated from this legislation, because it is a different problem. You are talking about ongoing care and help for them, and putting up the price of drink is not going to make any difference to those people, because they are dependent on alcohol. My family business sells cigarettes and tobacco. When cigarettes go up by a pound a packet, and the addict will come in and say, "There will never be another cigarette in my mouth", and a week later, they are paying the pound and buying 20 cigarettes. The hope is that it will stop young people from taking up the habit. This legislation is really future-proofing and pitched at a generation, because it will take 10 years to get the real benefit, but it is well worth starting the process and getting it going.

You have said that you are not privy to what goes on in the Executive, and no doubt there will be confidentiality issues as well. I think we are all wondering whether really compelling counterarguments have been made to the Executive, or is it a case of some people quietly obstructing the legislation for whatever reason? Hopefully, the legislation will go ahead and we will not get a negative statement from the Minister in April. We will keep our fingers crossed. Thank you.

Professor Sir Michael McBride: We have an obligation to ensure that we answer any concerns that Ministers have about the legislation. It is our responsibility as officials, and if points of clarification are needed about the evidence base, we are very happy to do that. Quite reasonably, Ministers will have questions, because it is their role to challenge, test and question, and it is our responsibility to comprehensively answer those questions and explain and interpret the evidence, or indeed, if there are gaps in the evidence, to provide the answers to ensure that Ministers are fully considering the options. Again, I am a pathological optimist and, hopefully, with the Committee’s support, there is still an opportunity for the Executive to proceed with the legislation in this mandate. Hopefully, that will be the case.

Mr Chambers: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Danny, a very small question.

Mr Donnelly: A very small question. The Minister is strongly in favour of this and has mentioned it many times. From what you have said, there have been three attempts to bring it to the Executive, and three papers have been presented.

Professor Sir Michael McBride: That is my understanding. I have provided advice on a number of occasions, but I am not party to Executive consideration or discussion, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment on that.

Mr Donnelly: Three papers have been presented, but none of them have been put on the agenda.

Professor Sir Michael McBride: I am not saying that, because I honestly do not know the detail of the Executive's consideration of the matter. I really do not, and it would not be appropriate for me to speculate or comment on that.

Mr Donnelly: There have certainly been repeated attempts by the Minister to bring it forward.

Professor Sir Michael McBride: You have highlighted how keen and committed the Minister is to this and how convinced he is by the evidence base and the advice that has been provided to him. He has publicly stated that as well. He restated his commitment at the event that you and a number of other MLAs attended on 19 November in the Long Gallery. He is absolutely committed to getting this one over the line in the time that remains in this mandate.

Mr Donnelly: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr McGuigan): Thank you very much. We really appreciate that; it has been very helpful.