Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on 9 June 2026.

MLA: Ms Connie Egan
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 9 June 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5602177

Text

I felt compelled to stand up today and make some remarks on the amendments moved by my colleagues across the Chamber that propose legislative changes on testing for drug consumption among those driving motor vehicles on our roads. When you talk to the everyday person in our constituencies and ask them what they want to see from us as elected representatives, often one of the answers is, "Fix the roads, make them better and make them safer". That rings particularly true for our communities in North Down following the devastating and tragic loss of 16-year-old Jaidyn Rice, who was killed by a driver in July last year. Jaidyn was a wonderful young woman whose passion and determination for bettering the world around her continue to shine out of everyone who met her and who now speaks of her. Her family and loved ones are in my thoughts today as we work together to ensure that these proposals are as watertight and practicable as possible. These amendments, if successful, would provide police officers with additional tools for investigating crime and prevent further serious and fatal incidents from happening in the first place. From the outset, I really welcome the intention behind this. Last year, the PSNI ran a winter campaign on drink- and drug-driving that saw over 100 drivers under the influence arrested in the first 15 days alone. Those drivers' lack of concern for the safety of others and themselves is shocking. It is my understanding that amendment No 74 inserts a new clause into the Road Traffic Order 1995 to give the PSNI powers to run an authorised checkpoint drugs test, making it an offence for a person not to cooperate "without reasonable excuse". Whilst my party and I intend to support that and the other amendments listed, I want to raise concerns about some potential unintended consequences that could leave officers open to criticism or challenge. For example, article 17CB(6) references "reasonable excuse". We would like to know what defines "reasonable" on the ground so that the rights of those at the scene and the officers administering those tests know their duties. I would be open to a response to that if the proposers would like to intervene on their intentions behind that, or perhaps they could provide clarification in later remarks. I also note that amendment No 75 continues in the same thread, editing article 17 of the Road Traffic Order 1995 to move the PSNI away from having the "power to administer preliminary tests" if an officer on the ground reasonably suspects that a traffic offence or accident has occurred by the person driving or trying to drive a motor vehicle to, instead, an officer having a legal duty. Again, we have to ensure that the standards that we put in legislation can be fully and realistically met at this time. I am not saying that it is not possible, but in the spirit of creating clear legislation, I would appreciate it if the Members could tell us about any engagement they have had with the PSNI on conducting preliminary drug testing and what their intentions are in relation to the amendment. That said, we have to do everything possible to ensure safety on our roads. That includes doing everything possible to prevent the harm that can happen from drugs. In that spirit, and in the spirit of ensuring no further delay to important steps being taken, Alliance will support the amendments, though we wait in anticipation for the Further Consideration Stage and the development of information from bodies, such as the Department for Infrastructure and the PSNI, on what is practically needed in order to commence the amendments. I also add my support to the amendment tabled by Members from different parties that amends requirements under the Criminal Justice Order 2008 relating to the seizure of vehicles that are being used to cause "alarm, distress or annoyance" to others. E-scooters are not toys. They have the potential to create serious harm, including risk to life, and, unfortunately, we have seen that in Northern Ireland in recent weeks. It is an issue that I and, I am sure, all Members have received contact on through our constituency offices. The unruly and dangerous usage of e-scooters is becoming more common. Those using them often put themselves, other road users and pedestrians in danger. I welcome the amendment's goal in giving the PSNI more tools to tackle reckless behaviour on our roads and footpaths.

746 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification