Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Paul Frew on 9 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Paul Frew

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

9 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5602061

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank the Minister for that vital intervention. I agree wholeheartedly with her. I look forward to working with her and her Department on the sentencing Bill as it progresses. Amendment No 74 adds a new clause to amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. It sits alongside what is already in existence in article 17CA, "Breath testing at authorised check-points", which deals with alcohol testing. What new article 17CB will do is bring drug testing at authorised checkpoints up to a par with alcohol testing. It is vital that the police have the power to stop and organise a checkpoint to test for drugs. It seems like a no-brainer, but we need to make sure that the police have the powers and the vires that they need to combat this scourge on society and to make our roads safer. That is why I ask the House to support amendment No 74. Amendment No 75 is on "Duty to administer preliminary tests". Currently, there is a power to administer preliminary tests under article 17 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. In article 17 on the power to administer preliminary tests, it states "any of paragraphs (2) to (5)" — there is a range of five items. What we are saying is that it should read:

"either or both paragraphs (2) and (3) apply"

instead of

"any of paragraphs (2) to (5)".

So it is:

"either or both paragraphs (2) and (3)".

Paragraph (2) states:

"This paragraph applies if a constable reasonably suspects that the person– (a) is driving, is attempting to drive or is in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and (b) has alcohol or a drug in his body or is under the influence of a drug."

Paragraph (3) states:

"This paragraph applies if a constable reasonably suspects that the person– (a) has been driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place while having alcohol or a drug in his body or while unfit to drive because of a drug".

Moving on to paragraphs (4) and (5), the change in the amendment is:

If either or both paragraphs (4) and (5) apply a constable must require a person to co-operate with any one or more preliminary tests administered to the person by that constable or another constable.”

So that no one is in any doubt, I clarify that paragraph (4) applies:

"if a constable reasonably suspects that the person– (a) is or has been driving, attempting to drive or in charge of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and (b) has committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion."

If the police stop someone because of reckless driving, careless driving or any other offence, they should test that driver for drugs. Paragraph (5) applies if:

"(a) an accident occurs owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road or other public place, and (b) a constable reasonably believes that the person was driving, attempting to drive or in charge of the vehicle at the time of the accident."

Therefore, when the police are called to the scene of a road traffic accident where there is injury or death, it will be mandatory to drug test the people involved in that accident. You would expect that to be the case with alcohol, so why should we not expect that with drugs? That is why the amendments are so important. It is why, along with Stephen Dunne and my colleagues Maurice Bradley and Brian Kingston, I was fully motivated to table the amendments. I think that society requires that of us because of the ills around drug taking. It will not be the answer. It will not stop things happening on our roads, but it will allow families to get truth and justice in a far better way than is currently being done, where there are gaps, and the police say that there are grey areas. Stephen will talk a bit more about that and about his experiences of meeting the police. I will move to the amendment regarding scooters. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with my colleagues Patsy McGlone and Nuala McAllister. I know that other Members were also interested in it. When we put out on social media that we were proposing the amendment jointly, a lot of my colleagues shared it, took it for themselves and put it on their social media platforms. I welcome that awareness raising, because there is absolutely no doubt that the prevalence of e-scooters now is mighty. The growth in the number of those vehicles darting around our streets is immense. Not a week goes by without me getting a complaint in my constituency office from someone who has nearly been hit by an e-scooter or from a driver of a car, who nearly hit someone who has darted across the road as they were driving down it. It is not only young people who use them; it is also older people. Some use the vehicles to commute to work. While they are handy and get you there more quickly, they are off-road vehicles. We need to look at it more thoroughly. We might need to have a Bill in its own right to deal with it. Whether that be through regulation or tougher prohibition, I do not have the answer, but what I do know is that, when multiple parties worked together in the House, we came up with something that will make it easier for the police to deal with the current problem. There have even been cases where constituents have walked out of my office door and nearly been cleaned by people on scooters doing up to 30 mph on a footpath. Sian Mulholland is my neighbour. Her office is on the same street as mine, and there are jewellers, barbers, hairdressers, estate agents, opticians and furniture stores. All sorts of clientele, young and old, use our footpaths as they have a right to do, but they have to dodge e-scooters. We need to deal with this massive issue.

Patsy will speak to this aspect of the amendment later on. However, the amendment makes it easier for the police to seize the vehicles, and there will be no requirement to issue a warning to the person driving the vehicle. Basically, when the police stop somebody and have their hands on the e-scooter, they will be able to seize that vehicle without prior warning. That is common sense; it is not everything because we did not have the time to do more. I suspect that if we had more time, we could have done more work together, but it is a start. I appeal to the parents who buy their children e-scooters to be mindful that they are for off-road use, and that they should be used on waste ground. An e-scooter is not conducive to waste ground, unlike a scrambler bike or a trials bike. An e-scooter has smaller wheels, and it cannot travel over rough ground. Therefore, why are parents buying their child an e-scooter? If you buy a child an e-scooter to travel along the carriageway, you are breaking the law; they will be breaking the law, but you are putting your child in grave danger because they may go out on the scooter and do 30 mph without protective clothing or a helmet, and you are taking the risk that your son or daughter will be injured. A number of weeks ago, there was an issue in my constituency, where a young person was hurt. A boy called Joshua was walking down the footpath, and an e-scooter came up behind him. He noticed the e-scooter and tried to get out of the way. He moved left or right, but whatever direction he moved in, so did the scooter. The scooter hit him, and Joshua had to go to the hospital because his elbow had been shattered and his arm and shoulder had been hurt in several places. Joshua was due to go on holiday the next week with his family, but his family missed out on the holiday. That is the impact that e-scooters can have. The young boy should make a full recovery. He has missed the holiday, but he should make a full recovery.

Absolutely. The safest place for people with a visual disability should be a footpath. We should make our footpaths as safe as we possibly can for people with visual impairments or disabilities. Yet the e-scooters can zoom down the streets at 30 mph.

1,443 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:52 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