Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): From the Research and Information Service (RaISe), we are joined by researchers Thomas Lough and Ross Connolly. We are really pleased to have you here. Thanks for the paper, gents. Thomas, please go ahead and give us an opening statement.

Mr Thomas Lough (RaISe): Thanks, Chair. It is nice to be here today to discuss the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. I do not think that either of us has been in front of you guys before. As the Chair said, I cover the human rights portfolio in RaISe. Ross is from the public finance scrutiny unit. I will go through a little of the context of the Bill and outline some of its content. I will then pass to Ross, who will discuss the financial implications of the Bill. If there are any questions, we can take them together at the end, if that suits.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Sorry, Thomas. Ross is going to do the financial implications —

Mr Lough: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): — and you are doing —

Mr Lough: The policy.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): — the policy.

Mr Lough: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. Thanks. It is just so that members are clear on that.

Mr Lough: No problem.

As you will know, and as is set out in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), the Bill's two main aims are to put non-religious-belief marriage, such as humanism, on an equal footing with religious marriage under the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and to raise the minimum age of marriage and civil partnership from 16 to 18.

I will start with a bit of background on belief marriage and provide some of the context. It is important to note that that is currently allowed in this jurisdiction under temporary arrangements following the High Court and Court of Appeal judgements in the Smyth case. The Bill would put it on a permanent legal footing. Since those temporary arrangements were put in place, there have been over 5,000 belief marriages in the jurisdiction.

I will touch on the situation in some of the neighbouring jurisdictions. In Scotland, marriage law is similar to here. The Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 was amended by the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014, which, amongst other changes, placed belief and religious celebrants on an equal footing in relation to marriage. Prior to that, similar to the situation here, it had been on a temporary footing since 2005. The 2014 Act in Scotland also provides a definition of a religious and belief body for the purposes of marriage and civil partnership. It states that, for these purposes:

We will come back to that a wee bit later and explain how the Bill defines it.

Under Irish law, there are three types of marriage, which are all equally and legally recognised: civil, religious and secular. Legal secular marriages were introduced by the Civil Registration (Amendment) Act 2012 and are carried out by a registered secular solemniser. As in other jurisdictions, humanist ceremonies are the most common type of secular ceremony in the Republic of Ireland. Again, there is a definition in the Republic of Ireland legislation. The definition of secular bodies under the Irish Act differs from the definition of belief bodies outlined in the Scottish Act. A secular body is defined as a group that, amongst other requirements, has at least 50 members; is principally secular, ethical and humanist; meets regularly in respect of those principal beliefs; and has been in existence for at least five years. Unlike the Scottish legislation, the 2012 Irish Act also lays out that certain groups are not considered secular groups for these purposes. That includes political parties or organisations, trade unions and chambers of commerce.

In England and Wales and the Isle of Man, belief marriage is not legally provided for, and any belief-based ceremony would require an additional legal ceremony.

As you will know, the consultation on the Bill ran from November 2021 until early 2022. Participants could respond through an online form or by written submission. There were 78 responses in total: 61 online and 17 written. The majority of respondents to the consultation were supportive of the changes. Just over half of respondents thought that the Registrar General should use assessment criteria, and a similar number thought that such criteria should be similar to the more demanding definition adopted by the Irish Government. A majority, including the three Churches that responded, believed that the qualifying criteria should apply to belief and religious groups. Northern Ireland Humanists supported qualifying criteria that included a membership threshold similar to that used in the legislation in the Republic of Ireland.

I will move to the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership and give the context there. Currently, as I am sure that you are aware, an individual can marry or form a civil partnership here from the age of 16. However, 16- and 17-year-olds require relevant consent, usually parental, to do so. Unlike the area of belief marriage, where court decisions have led to the Department's view that it is required to change the law, there is no similar obligation in relation to minimum age. As referenced by the Minister during the Bill's Second Stage debate, the number of people who marry in Northern Ireland at 16 or 17 is relatively small, and there have been no civil partnerships involving anyone under 18.

In 2024, marriages in those age groups represented around 0·5% of the total number of marriages.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): What is that, numerically, roughly?

Mr Lough: It is 38. There were 7,230 marriages that did not involve an under-18.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is 38 out of 7,000, basically.

Mr Lough: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. Thanks for that.

Mr Lough: However, as the Minister also pointed out, more girls than boys marry under 18, and, therefore, potential adverse consequences of marriage at that age fall disproportionately on girls. It may be interesting to note that a female 16- or 17-year-old who gets married is more likely to marry an older male. There are additional statistics on that in the paper, so I will not go into it any further.

It is important to mention international human rights standards in the area. They are clear that marriage under 18 is considered child marriage and should not be allowed under any circumstances. That has been made clear through a number of international agreements that the UK is party to, including the Committees of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Domestically, a number of groups, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, have repeated the international calls for a minimum age of 18 in Northern Ireland.

Elsewhere, the minimum age for marriage in the Republic is 18. That was changed by the Domestic Violence Act 2018. In England and Wales, 16- and 17-year-olds were able to marry previously, if they had parental consent, but changes through the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 mean that the minimum age is now 18. In Scotland, which is different, as you know, an individual can marry or register a civil partnership at 16, with no requirement for additional consent, parental or otherwise. However, the Scottish Government have recently consulted on changing that to 18. That consultation closed at the end of April. It will be for the new Administration, following the election, to decide whether and how to proceed on that manner. I do not know how up to date on pop culture the Committee is, but the Isle of Man has been in the news of late —

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Give us a try.

Mr Lough: The Isle of Man has been in the news owing to the marriage of Venezuela Fury, as you may have seen. She married at 16. The Isle of Man allows marriage at 16 or 17, with additional consents that are, again, usually parental.

As outlined in the consultation report that the Department published, support for increasing the minimum age to 18 was unmistakable. The vast majority of online responses to the consultation were supportive of the change. Of note in the report is that several respondents highlighted that marriage at 16 and 17 is more common in the Traveller community and that Traveller traditions should be considered. The Department notes that the only response received from a body representing that community, the Craigavon Travellers Support Committee, was supportive of increasing the age to 18. I believe that, when the Irish Government consulted on those changes, they reported similarly supportive responses from Traveller communities there.

I will not go through every clause of the Bill. I will highlight just a couple of them. There is more information on all of them in the paper.

Clauses 1 to 4 deal with the proposals on belief marriage. Clause 1(2)(d) would insert a new provision, article 10(2)(aa), to the 2003 Order, which would allow the Registrar General to refuse to register a member of a religious or belief body if:

In the Second Stage debate, the Minister mentioned such potential regulations. He noted that Northern Ireland Humanists had outlined concerns about the operation of the system as mentioned, when it came to the definition of a belief body, and that he believed that the statutory framework should be agile:

The Scottish legislation has a similar provision, but no such regulations have yet been introduced there on qualifying criteria. A proposal to do so was contained in the recent consultation. We will have to wait to see whether anything comes from that. Members may wish to ask the Department under what circumstances such requirements might be necessary and whether it has considered what qualifying requirements may be relevant.

Clause 3 deals with the definition of religious and belief bodies. It would amend the definition of a "religious body" by substituting it with a definition of a "religious or belief body", which, it proposes, is:

As I mentioned, that definition is similar to the definition that is used in the Scottish legislation. Around two fifths of the respondents to the consultation were in favour of mirroring the Scottish definition. Again, members may wish to ask the Department why it chose a definition that is similar to that which is used in Scotland rather than the one that is used in the Republic of Ireland, which has stricter criteria, and whether it is satisfied that the definition that is included in the Bill will help to safeguard against sham marriages. Those were some of the concerns raised in the consultation responses.

Clauses 5 to 10 relate to raising the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership. I will highlight some specific clauses, but there is more information in my paper. Clause 6 would amend section 16 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which deals with the offence of forced marriage, making it an offence to undertake conduct for the purpose of causing a child to marry before they turn 18. The new offence would not be limited to situations that involve violence, threats or other forms of coercion or deception and would apply whether or not such conduct is committed in Northern Ireland. Members may wish to ask the Department whether it has consulted with the Department of Justice on the new offence and what the plan is for the implementation of the offence.

Clause 8(2) would add a further provision in relation to voiding civil partnerships. It would void a civil partnership that was registered in Scotland if either party was domiciled in Northern Ireland and either party was under 18. That would mean that someone aged 16 or 17 living in Northern Ireland could not go to Scotland to form a civil partnership and then return. There is further provision on relationships that are registered overseas as civil partnerships.

There was a fair bit in that. I will stop there and hand over to Ross to discuss the financial implications. As I mentioned, there is more detail in the paper, which members will, hopefully, find helpful.

Mr Ross Connolly (RaISe): Thank you, Thomas. Good afternoon, Committee. I will present my review of costs paper, which is in members' packs. It examines the potential public purse implications of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. As Thomas has outlined, the Bill's two key objectives are to raise the minimum age for marriages and civil partnerships from 16 to 18 and to place non-religious belief marriages on the same statutory footing as religious marriages. The paper focuses on the key public expenditure impacts of the Bill if it were to be enacted as introduced. To be clear, the findings of the paper are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of potential wider financial impacts, but the paper provides indicative cost estimates, using evidence from similar jurisdictions to get a sense of the scale and structure of the costs for implementing the Bill's provisions in Northern Ireland. I will summarise by section and conclude with the key findings and takeaways from the paper.

Section 1 of the paper provides a brief public finance context to underpin the Committee's considerations of the potential public purse implications of the Bill. As a quick reminder for members, by "public purse" we mean taxpayers' money raised through taxation and other sources of government revenue. Any public purse costs that arise from the Bill would be met by departmental spending, either from DOF's existing budget or through re-prioritisation within the Executive's overall spending envelope.

As members will be aware, it remains a challenging period for public finances at both the central and devolved levels. The draft multi-year Budget remains not agreed by the Executive, and DOF officials gave evidence to the Committee in February in which they stated:

The public purse implications of the Bill are, therefore, worthy of particular focus, considering the Bill in the context of the wider ongoing financial pressures on the Department and the wider Executive.

Section 2 of the paper explores evidence from similar nearby jurisdictions, primarily England, Wales and Scotland, that have introduced legislation with provisions that are similar to those in the Bill in recent years. The Department's EFM to accompany the Bill states:

There is not a lot of further data or rationale provided to support that, however. To offer a bit of deeper examination, therefore, the paper looks at the detailed costings that were prepared in England, Wales and Scotland.

Looking at England and Wales first, we see that legislation enacted in 2022 raised the minimum age for marriages and civil partnerships there from 16 to 18. Belief marriages are not currently legally permissible in England and Wales. For the minimum-age changes, two detailed impact assessments were prepared, which have given us an evidence base from which to work. For the purposes of the paper, I focused only on the second impact assessment, which was more robust and had more up-to-date data underlying it. The analysis for England and Wales identified overall one-off costs of £1·8 million, with an average ongoing annual cost of £0·2 million.

Those spending implications were split across six main categories, including system and administrative updates for the General Register Office, a communications campaign, prison capacity costs, investigation costs, agency costs and lost registration fee income. In the interests of time, I will not cover each of those in detail today, but they were carried forward to calculate the estimates for Northern Ireland that we provided.

A range of benefits were associated with a reduction in the number of under-18 marriages, but it is not possible to place a monetary value on those using standard cost-benefit methodology.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): You may come to this, but is the NI equivalent of the figure for the cost in England and Wales — what did you say that was?

Mr Connolly: It was £1·8 million.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It was £1·8 million for England and Wales. Is it correct that the comparative number that you have come up with for Northern Ireland — I am looking at the paper in which you add everything up — is, as it appears, just over £100,000?

Mr Connolly: I will come to that later in the presentation. The total indicative range for Northern Ireland was from £86,000 to £116,000 in one-off costs.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I am comparing the right numbers.

Mr Connolly: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): OK. Fine. Thank you.

Mr Connolly: I should have been a little more explicit about the totals in the paper.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): No, do not worry. It is clear in the paper; I just wanted to clarify it for myself.

Mr Connolly: I will turn to the position in Scotland. As Thomas said, the current legal age for marriage is 16, with no requirement for parental consent. Non-religious belief marriages have been on an equal footing with belief marriages in Scotland since 2014. At that time, the Scottish Government found that no costs were expected to arise from the changes to belief marriage provision. The changes had been taking place under temporary arrangements in Scotland prior to 2014, which was similar to the current context in Northern Ireland, so that aspect of the Bill is expected to have minimal implications for the public purse.

Fortunately, we have further relevant data from Scotland to work with. Its recent family law consultation included a partial impact assessment of the cost of raising the minimum age for marriage and civil partnerships from 16 to 18. Members are asked to note that the costings for Scotland are partial and incomplete, but the overall financial conclusion was that the costs were expected to be low. The cost areas identified are, again, generally similar to those that were identified for England and Wales, such as IT and administrative updates; registration fee income; a communications campaign, which the Scottish Government assessed as absorbable within their existing capacity and therefore not generating additional costs; and training and familiarisation. Per-case figures were presented for prosecution, court, legal aid and prison capacity costs, given the expected small number of cases. The aggregate best estimate of the total one-off transition costs was £300,000, with ongoing costs being driven by demand-led legal and justice costs.

I will touch briefly on the context in the Republic of Ireland, where, as Thomas mentioned, the marriage age was raised to 18 by the Domestic Violence Act 2018, under which the minimum age reforms were only one strand of a much wider package. Belief and secular marriages have been on an equal legal footing in the Republic of Ireland since 2012. However, the Irish Government did not prepare detailed costings in either case, stating simply that there would be no significant cost to the public purse. I present those cases briefly in the paper to further make the point that overall costs are expected to be low, but there was no scope to carry any information forward into the cost calculations for Northern Ireland.

Section 3 of the paper uses the comparative research and analysis in the previous section to derive potential financial implications for the public purse in Northern Ireland. Again, those are not formal cost estimates, but they indicate the scale and structure of the costs that would be incurred.

Two key cost implications arise from the experience across England and Wales and Scotland. First, the belief marriage provisions in Part 1 of the Bill are not expected to add material costs to the public purse. That was the case in Scotland, which formalised an existing temporary system akin to that in Northern Ireland to provide for such marriages. Secondly, Northern Ireland has a much smaller population than that of England and Wales and Scotland, so the equivalent costs will be substantially lower in absolute terms, but the structure of the costs is likely to be similar. Thomas has already outlined the scale of under-18 marriages here. So, in the interests of time, I will not get into that again.

Part 2 of the Bill deals with the minimum age provisions. Tables 6 and 7 lay out the calculations across different cost areas. The paper presents the one-off transition costs across five categories, and the costs for Northern Ireland are based on population, adjusting the costs from the other jurisdictions. There is an indicative cost range from £16,000 to £35,000 for registration, system and administrative updates. There is an indicative cost range from £0 to £11,000 for a communications campaign, depending on whether it can be absorbed within the existing capacity of the Department. There is an indicative cost of £35,000 for police training and familiarisation, and there is an equivalent £35,000 for Public Prosecution Service (PPS) training. Finally, the indicative one-off cost for new prison places is effectively zero, given the negligible number of prosecutions expected based on the experience in England and Wales and Scotland. Therefore, there is a total indicative one-off cost range from £86,000 to £116,000.

The ongoing annual costs are all expected to be negligible, with many arising only if and when a prosecution occurs. Members should note that the cost per prisoner place in Northern Ireland was around £57,000 per year in 2024-25. However, the scale of prosecutions under clause 6 of the Bill is expected to be minimal. Further to the analysis done for this paper, RaISe contacted the General Register Office for Northern Ireland (GRONI) directly to ask for any cost estimates for the Bill. It has been confirmed that there would be costs associated with implementing the Bill, but no formal assessment of those costs has been done, as it awaits the Bill's final requirements. Members should note that the most significant financial benefits of the Bill cannot be assessed with the usual cost-benefit methodology.

The paper presents several potential scrutiny points, which the Committee may wish to ask the Department about. Most notable amongst these are whether GRONI will undertake a full cost assessment in advance of the Bill's implementation, whether any data is held on non-legally binding marriages involving under-18s, whether the communications costs identified could be absorbed within existing capacity and whether the Department will publish any further cost estimates for relevant bodies, such as the PSNI or the PPS.

In conclusion, the indicative proportional cost estimates presented in the paper suggest that the Bill's direct public purse implications would be modest and primarily one-off costs. The relatively low costs are consistent with the small number of under-18 marriages in Northern Ireland, which would limit the scale of impacts across registration, criminal justice and related systems. I am happy to take any further questions on the paper from members.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thank you, Ross and Thomas. A couple of members have indicated that they want to ask a question, and I have a quick question. We have had written evidence from the NI Humanists, and it said that it is in everyone's interests, including its own, for there to be a degree of reliability and integrity and, I suppose, respect for humanist celebrants. Is it fair to say that NI Humanists want a higher degree of certainty than is currently in the Bill about who qualifies as a belief celebrant?

Mr Lough: Yes, judging by the consultation response. The Committee has had some correspondence with the NI Humanists. I will not speak for it, but it was much more in favour of the stricter criteria that are in the Republic’s legislation, specifically about membership size. For example, there must be at least 50 members. The Scottish legislation and the proposals in the Bill do not have a minimum number of members that a body would need to have to apply to the registers.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Is there any evidence from Scotland that its legislation has led to sham marriages, the involvement of people who should not be associated with it or quack organisations? I am not sure who I am offending by saying that.

Mr Lough: I did not look specifically at that issue. I looked through the Scottish Government’s consultation document, which talks about the qualifying criteria that it wants to put in. I did not notice any specific concerns about sham marriage. If it is something the Committee is particularly interested in, I can certainly take that away and have a look. Since the Act went through, Scotland has had the ability to put regulations in place.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): It was done under the temporary provisions since 2005.

Mr Lough: Exactly. They were doing it from 2005 to 2014 under temporary provisions. Since 2014, they have been doing it on that permanent legal footing. It is only now that they have considered whether they should put in qualifying criteria additionally. It would seem to indicate that there is no major problem if it has taken them that long to do it. However, I am not 100% sure of that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I will bring in the Deputy Chair and then Gerry. I might have to break just before 5.00 pm because a couple of members have to leave, which means that we will be inquorate, and we have a couple of decisions to make before they leave. If I see members getting up, I will stop you and ask you to sign off some minutes.

Ms Forsythe: Thank you very much for that. It was really detailed and helpful. I really appreciate that.

I am a little bit confused about the practicalities when it comes to under-18s who get married in another jurisdiction. When they come here, what happens? You are saying that, when you get married elsewhere and then come here, the marriage is not recognised. How is it not recognised? What are the consequences of that? What does that actually mean in practical terms?

Mr Lough: It would depend. If you were resident here, went elsewhere specifically to marry while under 18 and then came back, the marriage would not be recognised. However, if someone resided somewhere — Scotland, for example — married there at 16 or 17 years of age and moved here while they were still under 18, under common law, their marriage would still be recognised. Therefore, it would depend on the situation and where the person resided at the time. I know that there was a question to the Department — I think that Brian asked it when officials were here in April — and the answer is really around the common law, whereby you would recognise the marriage unless someone was under 18 and had moved specifically just to get married, or had nipped across to somewhere to get married, and had then come back. Civil partnerships are dealt with differently as well. Those can be voided in a way in which marriages cannot, due to the way in which that legislation allows for it. That is why the Bill would allow for civil partnerships to be voided if the participants were under 18, one of the partners was resident here and they went elsewhere to get a civil partnership before that age. How it is treated would depend on where the person was resident at the time, really.

Ms Forsythe: That is helpful. Thank you very much. As I say, there is really good detail on that and around the cost. It is really useful. Thanks very much for that.

Mr Lough: No problem.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I will bring in Gerry, and then we will do a very quick sign-off.

Mr Carroll: Thanks for the paper. I have a few questions. I just wonder whether you are aware of these issues and will look at them again. I am concerned as well that the Scottish model is too lax. If you would look into that further, that would be useful. The issues that the Chair has raised have been raised with me. As I understand it, there are more rules in the South with regard to who can officiate at weddings. There was also a ban on certain groups being able to officiate. I do not know whether it is still in place. They could not be involved in campaigning or political acts. I am paraphrasing. That is not a direct quote from the legislation.

Mr Lough: The legislation does not allow specific groups to officiate. You could tick those criteria off. You could say that you are not a political party, you have more than 50 members, you have existed for over five years and you meet to discuss your philosophical belief.

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Mr Lough: The Irish Government put through legislation that specifically says that political parties and trade unions cannot be belief bodies and officiate a marriage —

Mr Carroll: I get that. However, the point is that the likes of humanist organisations in the South, as I understand it, are prevented from campaigning at all. Therefore, you can officiate at humanist weddings, but you cannot campaign on other separate political issues.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Such as referenda.

Mr Carroll: Yes, or any issues. That is my understanding of it. Are you looking into that? Obviously, that would breach all sorts of rights in legislation, such as the right to assembly and the right to organise. If you are not aware of it, that is totally fine. However, it has been raised with me. I would be keen to get a bit more information about that. Did I explain it clearly?

Mr Lough: Yes. That makes sense. It is not something that I had come across, but, again, I am happy to —

Mr Carroll: I would be interested in getting more information. I am sure that other Members would as well.

Are you aware of concern that newer organisations that spring up, or have sprung up already, should operate in a different way from GRONI? Perhaps, that is the best way in which to present it. Concern was raised with me about the need for some of those organisations to be registered as charities or community interest companies, or for GRONI to provide some form of training. You are not from GRONI, but are you aware of whether it is looking at any of that?

Mr Lough: I am not. The Department may be better placed to answer questions about how that works in practice and the kinds of safeguards around it. However, if I can find anything on that, I will let you know.

Mr Carroll: Fair enough. This is my final question. I appreciate your comments. You mentioned the Traveller community and the fact that one body in Craigavon responded. Are you aware of whether other organisations were contacted but did not express an opinion?

Mr Lough: There may have been individuals who responded. The consultation report mentions that the Craigavon Travellers Support Committee was the only body representing Travellers that responded to the consultation. As to whether any others were specifically contacted for a response, again, the Department would probably be better placed to answer that.

Mr Carroll: Thanks for that.

Mr Lough: No problem.

Mr Carroll: I need to go, Chair. Apologies.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Before you go, Gerry, given that we are just about quorate, I will quickly mention two things, the first of which is our minutes. At page 280 of the pack, you will find the minutes from our last meeting. If members are content that those are a true reflection of proceedings on 27 May, I will sign them. Are members content?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): I direct you to the forward work programme. We now have only a few meetings left before we break up for the summer. The draft forward work programme is at page 328. There are various bits and pieces. Are members content that that is published on the website?

Mr Carroll: Can I go? Thanks.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That is great. Thank you.

Before anyone else leaves, are members agreed that we follow up on the scrutiny points detailed in the RaISe paper with the Department?

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): We will go back to the Bill. Gerry asked a bit about the belief system. Someone tried unsuccessfully to get a humanist marriage in Northern Ireland more than 10 years ago, but is there evidence that there is greater take-up of belief marriage? If you are going from zero, there will, by definition, be more take-up. Given that you can already have a belief marriage here, but it is not on a fully statutory basis, is take-up expected to increase?

Mr Lough: That is a good question. It is not something that I came across when I looked at what happened in Scotland as a result of its change, but I can certainly look at the data and the stats from Scotland to see whether there was any change there.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): That would be helpful.

It may be interesting to know — you may have this, but I do not expect you to — whether, over a similar period, the number of marriages among 16- to 18-year-olds has fallen. I presume that it has fallen significantly over the past few decades here and in most other places on these islands. If stats exist on that, we would be keen to see them. If not, it is fine.

Mr Lough: I only go back to 2020 in the paper, but there will certainly be stats that go further back than that.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): If those are available, they would be helpful. Thank you very much.

Mr Lough: No problem at all.

The Chairperson (Mr O'Toole): Thanks, Thomas. Thanks, Ross. We really appreciate it. There are no further questions.