Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Mrs Ciara Ferguson on .
- MLA
- Mrs Ciara Ferguson
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 9 June 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5602094
Read the official Assembly record
Text
My party welcomes and supports the three amendments in group 5 on drink- and drug-driving measures and police seizure of vehicles. Driving while under the influence of drink or drugs is one of the Fatal Five: the main reasons why people die on our roads.
I welcome the inclusion of amendment Nos 74 and 75 regarding drug testing at authorised checkpoints, and the strengthening of the wording of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 on the policing powers to administer preliminary tests.
It should be noted that the Road Traffic Act 2016 in the South of Ireland introduced roadside saliva testing. The gardaí can test at mandatory intoxication checkpoints. In addition, its Road Traffic Act 2024 made drug testing mandatory after serious collisions, aligning it with the regime for alcohol testing. I emphasise that initial results from a 12-month, roadside drug wipes pilot here showed that around half of the people tested by police were positive for cannabis and/or cocaine. I welcome the fact that the Infrastructure Minister followed that with a significant investment in a targeted road traffic campaign, and her Department type-approved the drug wipes, making it possible for the PSNI to use drug wipes to detect the presence of drugs at the roadside. I also take a brief moment to recognise and praise the family of Enda Dolan, and other families, who are devastated by drink-/drug-related deaths. As the Minister noted, additional change is also needed in the upcoming Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill to bolster efforts to ensure that adequate deterrents are in place to protect other families from similar pain and heartbreak. Amendment No 90 amends article 65 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, which grants police the power to immediately seize a motor vehicle that is being used in a careless or inconsistent manner, without warning. That applies to any mechanically propelled vehicle that is intended or adapted for use on roads, including e-scooters, e-bikes and scramblers. Whilst such vehicles do not generally comply with construction and use legislation and vehicle standards for road usage, we all know only too well of the recent examples of the misuse of such adapted vehicles in our local communities, which is causing rising casualty figures and significant distress. It is beyond concerning how many people, including children and young people, are driving those powerful machines without helmets or protective gear in residential areas, on pedestrian pathways and in public areas, causing risk to life or significant injury, not only to themselves but to others around them. As a Derry-based MLA, I know only too well the specific challenges in our neighbourhoods and our city, and recent policing efforts to conduct targeted operations in hotspots to seize illegally ridden vehicles. The reality is that younger children do not have the judgement, coordination or hazard awareness that such powerful devices require. Just yesterday, Dr Ian Dunwoody, in the emergency department in Altnagelvin Hospital, highlighted the worrying rise in serious injuries that are linked to e-scooters and e-bikes. He is seeing injuries that are far more serious, with more children needing surgery. Likewise, the Faculty of Paediatrics of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland has noted the unprecedented rise in brain injuries that are being caused by e-scooters. It stated:
"If we don't act now, this trend will continue with devastating results for young people and their families ...".
As for other pedestrians, we know that those machines create additional vulnerability and risk for people with disabilities, small children, older people, and others, as those vehicles often weave through them at speed or straight into busy, oncoming traffic, often causing terrifying near misses, dangerous collisions or serious injury. We have heard of lived experiences from people locally with sight and hearing impairments who have had their confidence knocked as a result of terrifying ordeals that affected their independence and led to further isolation. The message needs to be loud and clear: we have a duty to act collectively, with a coordinated approach across sellers, users, owners, parents, the PSNI and statutory partners, to reduce the usage of such vehicles on our roads. Whilst the amendment is vital to ensuring safe spaces and the freedom to travel and socialise with confidence, it is urgent to prevent the absolute devastation that would arise from loss of life as a result of e-scooter use. I urge everyone to support amendment Nos 74, 75 and 90.
736 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.03 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.80 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.17 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
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.