Debate contribution: Independent Review of the Liquor Licensing System, including the Surrender Principle

Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on 18 November 2025.

MLA

Mr Gordon Lyons

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

18 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Ministerial Statement

Heading

Independent Review of the Liquor Licensing System, including the Surrender Principle

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5244419

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Yes, but it was the Member's initiative that brought that forward. Frankly, I am a little surprised that he has not realised or mentioned the other consequences that it will have. He wants me to move in one direction, but he fails to recognise or understand that there are consequences of every action that we take in that area. Therefore, moving away on the surrender principle or some of those other issues that he might want us to move on will have direct and real consequences for other people. Unfortunately, that was not noted in the report that was produced, and it is disappointing that those issues were not taken into consideration. Another point to raise with the Member is that it is not the licensing regime in itself or the licensing regime alone that is contributing to some of the issues that we see in society. Over recent months, in GB alone, which has a different licensing regime, we saw more than 200 pubs close, so it is wrong to say that licensing is a major or the only factor that is contributing to that. Also, multiple issues contribute to the wider health issues that he mentions. It is important that when we consider time, we do not come with half-baked ideas but take time to consider all the implications and not how it will affect just one group of people.

Let me make it clear that I am the person who is sitting in this chair, and I am the one who makes the decisions. I am fed up with people coming to the House and asking, "Well, what did officials say on this?". Officials are not elected. Officials are not held accountable: I am, though I am happy to confirm to the Member that there was no disagreement on the issue with officials because we have a team in the Department that is very aware of the issues and knowledgeable on what is going on. I understand that there will be disappointment for some who might say that we do not have changes in place. It is not that there will be no changes. Some reform will take place, and reviews of existing legislation will be under way at the start of next year. We have to understand, however, that what may be a positive consequence for one person might have a detrimental or, in some cases, devastating impact on other people, and those all need to be taken into consideration. That is why I think that we are taking the right approach, which is making sure that we cost proposals, that we impact-assess proposals and that we make sure that they contribute to the overall goals that we have. That is what I am committed to doing.

The Member is right to highlight the value of the hospitality sector to the economy more widely. The report states that around 6,000 people are directly employed in the pub sector and the wider licensed trade, excluding grocers and supermarkets, and that it directly employs an estimated 27,500 people and sustains 36,000 jobs overall. The report also quotes an independent report commissioned by Hospitality Ulster that states that, in 2017, hospitality provided 8·7% of jobs in Northern Ireland, contributed £1·6 billion to the Northern Ireland economy and generated £88·4 million in tax revenue. That indicates just how important the hospitality sector is to the economy in Northern Ireland and why we need to be careful about making significant changes without having them properly costed or impact-assessed. I would reiterate that point to Mr O'Toole, who took great interest in the subject but seems to have left the Chamber already.

I thank the Member for her question. I have spoken directly to organisations that are affected by this. Although the Department did not accept the author's recommendation to introduce a new category of licence, I recognise the role that the licensing regime plays when it comes to the issues that the Member raised. I have asked my officials to explore the current regime, which provides 13 categories of licence, to see how we can support this and provide potential solutions, if those are required, which they are.

My views on the issue will be led by the evidence. I am not convinced on that; I speak from personal opinion. I want to deal with alcohol-related harm, and there are different tools at our disposal to do that. There is some contradictory evidence coming from Scotland on that, and I have asked for more information to help better inform those discussions. I have no objection in principle to these things, but I want to make sure that we have a robust evidence base so that any changes that we bring in will be effective in dealing with the problem and will lead to improved health outcomes.

We certainly want to make sure that the necessary licensing regime and the enforcement of that are in place, but the cost of doing that would have been prohibitive. It is not a priority for us at this time, but, of course, the issues will be kept under review. I do not think that the report went into the detail that we needed on that issue.

Yes, of course. I would have loved the money to have been spent in other ways, although we have got some useful information and data from it. I certainly agree that I would like to see the night-time economy being supported. The Member has been vocal in ensuring that contributions have been made from Departments, including mine, to make sure that that money can be used for the night-time economy. It shows the need for us to recognise the constraints on Departments and the requirement to sometimes outsource some of the work. It is something that we should all be careful of when passing legislation.

I am sorry to repeat what is already in the report, but those are matters for the Department for the Economy. However, I would certainly be supportive of that.

That is an area of concern. It will be looked at as part of the three-year review that follows the legislation being passed in 2022, and that will begin next year. We will look at suggested reforms of the producer's licence at that time.

We have not rejected outright the authors' recommendations on the producer's licence. The reforms were introduced by the Department to modernise the liquor licensing regime. That followed extensive consultation with the industry representatives, and it came into force only in 2022. The number of local producers' licences granted by a court has grown from seven in 2022 to 15 in 2023 and 20 in 2024. We are under a statutory obligation to review those provisions three years after they came into force. I anticipate that the review of the provisions on the producer's licence will be launched early next year, and the need for further reform will be considered in the context of the responses to that wider review. I have asked officials to undertake proactive and meaningful engagement with the sector throughout the process, because it is important that we help where we can.

Absolutely. I agree, and I highlighted that in my speech. There are many that are under pressure and many that are just about keeping their head above water. This would be a seismic change and not one that has been properly costed or its impact properly assessed. It is important that that is all kept at the forefront of people's minds. It is easy to come to the House and say, "Minister, we should change x or y", but that can have direct consequences for other people and that needs to be kept in mind. We must put in place reforms that are fair and proportionate, and changes to the surrender principle in the way suggested would not have fulfilled that.

Although we do not have those figures ourselves, figures have been provided by Hospitality Ulster. It has suggested that the cost of reform of the surrender principle, when you factor in loss of trading value, could be up to £313·7 million.

That is why we do not take such decisions lightly. We have to take into consideration the impact that it would have. Unfortunately, as the Member noted, the authors did not cost the impact of their proposed reform, which is why it would be irresponsible of me to take that forward.

Hospitality Ulster provided us with those figures. The authors of the report echoed the findings of a 2007 Grant Thornton report on the surrender principle, which was commissioned by what was then the Department for Social Development. It said that it would be challenging to calculate the cost of reform with any degree of certainty. That is why it is important that we also listen to the evidence that others bring forward. Costs of reform to the surrender principle need to take into account the impact on licensed premises, potential changes in job numbers and the impact on the profitability of the sector as a whole. That is why it is good to listen to those on the ground — those with lived experience, shall we say, about whom we are often keen to talk in this place. Hospitality Ulster did that when it took all those impacts into consideration, and it is useful for us to listen to that.

I apologise to the House, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, because I do not have that information to hand, but I will be happy to provide it to the Member directly in writing.

That is important and should be taken into consideration when we look at the licensing regime.

I am certainly happy to look at those allegations and get more information, if necessary. I will come back to the Member in writing, once that has been carried out.

1,645 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:58 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification