Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on 9 June 2026.

MLA

Mr David Brooks

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 5602185

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Like many of those who have spoken before me, I will first speak to amendments Nos 74 and 75, and then I will turn to amendment No 90 that my colleague Mr Frew worked cross-party to draft, and which will increase the powers to confiscate e-scooters and scramblers, which is particularly relevant to my constituency. Amendment Nos 74 and 75 are practical, proportionate and potentially life-saving measures that are designed to tackle the growing threat of drug-driving on our roads. Amendment No 74 would allow a constable on duty at an authorised checkpoint to require a driver to cooperate with a roadside drugs test through providing a saliva sample. As has been said, that, in essence, places drug-driving testing on a similar footing to the breath tests that have become a routine and accepted part of drink-driving enforcement. For decades, society at large has recognised that alcohol impairs judgement, slows reaction times and puts lives at risk. Many of us will remember the startling and impactful adverts over the years. I remember them even from my childhood. There was a shift in culture as people realised the dangers that drink-driving — driving under the influence of an alcoholic substance — posed not only to the driver but to communities, pedestrians and other innocent road users. That recognition and cultural change has been backed up by robust roadside enforcement. Drugs can be equally dangerous, however, and, in some cases, even more so, yet our enforcement powers have not always kept pace. My colleague's story about his relative will have touched many across the Chamber. We hope that the measures in the amendments will lead to fewer such situations in future. Amendment No 74 would address that imbalance by providing our police officers with a straightforward screening tool at checkpoints, thus sending a clear message that drug-driving is every bit as unacceptable as drink-driving and, in future, will be just as likely to be detected and punished. It is about giving the police the ability to identify, before tragedy occurs, those who may be driving under the influence of illegal or impairing substances. Amendment No 75 is equally important. As has been stated, at present, when a driver is stopped for reckless or dangerous driving or has been involved in a collision causing injury or death, a degree of discretion remains as to whether a drug test is administered. The amendment would remove that discretion and require testing in those circumstances, which is entirely reasonable. If a driver is suspected of reckless driving, there is a legitimate public interest in establishing whether drugs were a factor. If a collision occurs in which someone has been injured or killed, families deserve to know that every possible line of enquiry has been pursued. Mandatory testing in such circumstances would protect the integrity of investigations, ensure consistency of enforcement and remove any perception that testing might vary from one officer or one area to another. It would also protect police officers by providing them with a clear statutory requirement rather than leaving it up to them to make difficult judgement calls in what can be highly stressful situations. Other jurisdictions in the United Kingdom have significantly strengthened their approach to drug-driving. Police officers now routinely use roadside saliva-testing devices, and drug-driving laws were specifically reformed to make enforcement more effective. The objective was simple: to bring drug-driving enforcement closer to the model that has proven successful in tackling drink-driving. The result has been a clearer framework for police and a stronger deterrent for motorists. Members will be familiar, not least through the contributions from my colleagues, particularly Stephen Dunne, about what has become known as Jaidyn's law, which we hope amendment No 75 will bring into effect. Calls for such a law emerged following the tragic death of Jaidyn Rice and the subsequent campaign by her family for the introduction of tougher road safety measures. I commend that family for their campaign, and I commend my colleagues Stephen Dunne and the Chair of the Justice Committee for working on the amendment. The principle is very clear: when serious collisions occur, particularly those that involve death or serious injury, there should be mandatory testing of drivers so that evidence is gathered immediately, thus enabling families to have confidence that no question has been left unanswered. The relevance of Jaidyn's law to amendment No 75 is clear. Both are founded on the belief that, where the consequences are grave, testing should be automatic rather than optional. The law should not rely on chance, discretion or inconsistency when the stakes are so high. The amendment is not about being anti-driver. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of drivers would feel safer on our roads as a result of its being made. Rather, it is anti-drug misuse and pro-road safety. The measures are about protecting innocent road users, pedestrians, cyclists and passengers and about giving our police the tools that they need. They are about ensuring that enforcement provides sufficient deterrence and accountability and that, when serious incidents occur, the truth can be established quickly and fairly. Every Member wants safer roads. Every Member wants fewer families to receive devastating news from the police at their front door. Although amendment Nos 74 and 75 would not eliminate drug-driving overnight, they represent a sensible, evidence-based step that would improve enforcement, strengthen deterrence and ultimately save lives.

I thank the Minister for the clarification that she granted in response to my intervention in my colleague's speech earlier. For all those reasons, I commend both those amendments to the House. I will move on to an issue that has been hugely prevalent and a torment to residents, community workers and, indeed, police in my constituency, and it has been a focus of my work over the past months and, indeed, couple of years: the misuse of scramblers and e-scooters. I welcome the amendment that would allow police to confiscate those scooters and scramblers without warning, and I commend my colleague Paul Frew and Members from other parties, Patsy and Nuala, whom he worked with to bring it forward. It is a sensible and necessary measure that addresses a real problem that communities across Northern Ireland experience daily. Indeed, while I and some others have been talking about it for a while, we can see, through social media videos, the 'Peelers: The PSNI for Real' TV show and, no doubt, increasing issues in constituency offices, that the dangerous and antisocial misuse of e-scooters and scramblers is now a matter that few of us do not deal with regularly. I congratulate the PSNI in north Belfast on its recent haul of Sur-Ron e-scramblers, which I saw on its Facebook page. I know that their east Belfast colleagues have had a number of successes on that front recently too. I hope that we see many more such posts. I wish them every success in their efforts. However, I also know that they operate within a system that often seems to put barriers in their way rather than enabling them to act. For too long, residents have had to endure those vehicles being driven recklessly through housing estates, down greenways and in parks and public spaces. Parents worry about children playing outside. Elderly residents fear using footpaths. People who are simply trying to walk to the shops or enjoy a local park should not have to dodge vehicles being ridden in a manner that is dangerous, intimidating and, in many cases, completely unlawful. That is before we take into account, as, I am sure, the Justice Minister is well aware, that it is not merely a matter of antisocial behaviour or kids larking about. In our constituency is concerned, those vehicles are used in the supply of drugs. The greenway — much lauded as a success in our constituency — has been described to me by police and community representatives as a "highway" for such supplies, where those who use the vehicles are secure in the knowledge that the police lack the powers and abilities to chase them effectively, particularly on the greenways. The amendment is not revolutionary. It does not create new offences or introduce sweeping new powers. It removes an unnecessary obstacle to effective enforcement by allowing the PSNI to seize the vehicles immediately where legal grounds exist, rather than having to first issue a warning. At a time when it seems as though the odds are stacked too heavily in favour of the perpetrators, where we have seen them actively goad PSNI officers, every little helps to rebalance the scales in favour of our police force. That is a practical step in the right direction. If a vehicle is being used illegally and dangerously, common sense suggests that officers should be able to act there and then. A system that requires warnings before action can be taken risks allowing offenders to evade consequences and undermines confidence in enforcement. Therefore, I support that amendment wholeheartedly. While supporting it, however, we must also be honest and acknowledge that it is only a step in the right direction. I know that the proposer knows that. The scale of the problem requires us to think more broadly and ambitiously. This is not the time to debate it more fully, but we do need to look at powers to go further when dealing with repeat offenders and serious misuse. That will probably require stand-alone legislation. At present, in many cases, an individual whose vehicle has been confiscated can pay a relatively modest fee and recover it. For some, that has become little more than an inconvenience rather than a deterrent. That cannot be right. We should consider powers that allow for the permanent deprivation of a vehicle where an individual has been responsible for the dangerous, reckless or persistent misuse of that vehicle. There is strong public interest in ensuring that, if someone demonstrates repeatedly that they cannot use a vehicle responsibly, they simply do not have it handed back to them a short period later. Alongside stronger powers, we need better operational capability. While I will not go deeply into that, the Minister will have heard me speak about the need for drone teams and for those drones to be accessible to police officers when they are needed rather than having to be booked in advance. I understand that that requires additional resource. However, it is necessary, given the problems that we have seen on the greenway and in other places where police do not currently have the ability to give chase.

I certainly recognise that in my constituency. Not only do I recognise it in my constituency, but police officers routinely talk to me about it. It is not even that they have to think too much about it: it is fundamentally so dangerous not only for the person on the bike but for other users of the paths or greenways or roads that the police are not able to give chase in that way. In a minority of circumstances, they will have been able to chase the perpetrator, but, too often, that is not the case. They also speak about wanting to see mandatory registration at the point of sale. I come to something else that the Member was talking about. A police officer who had experience working in England contacted me recently. They communicated that officers in GB have benefited from the enactment of sections 5 and 6 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. In practice, that means that, instead of an investigation being judged against the driving of a careful and competent driver, they are more recently judged against that of a careful constable who has undertaken the same prescribed training, which better takes into account their level of training and the context in which they are asked to protect the public good. While that is not directly relevant — I understand that the Deputy Speaker may be indulging me in that regard — I encourage the Minister to look into that. Returning to the amendment and those on whom it may impact, I recognise that some become frustrated when the issue is discussed — e-scooters, in particular — and sometimes feel that e-scooters are demonised and that they do not always act irresponsibly. Many people purchase e-scooters because they see them as a practical means of transport. They want to use an affordable way to travel to and from work, or they want that solution for short journeys. My colleague talked about sustainable travel, which we have often encouraged and what is often referred to as "the last mile" of their commute. I understand that perspective, but the reality is that, under the current law, the use of privately owned e-scooters on public roads and footpaths is illegal. That is the legal position. At the same time, when enforcement is lax, it is hardly surprising that such use has become normalised. People see others using those vehicles every day without consequence and, understandably, conclude that the rules are not being enforced. That brings me to a final point, again slightly outside the scope of today's Bill: it is long since time that the Department for Infrastructure engaged seriously on the issue. The current approach of effectively doing nothing may save that Department from immediate hassle, but it does not serve everyone well. It does not serve well those who wish to use the vehicles legitimately for short commutes and sustainable travel, nor does it serve pedestrians, families and vulnerable road users, who have to contend with the dangers created by unregulated and unlawful use. The Department should look to putting a framework in place that asks the following questions. What should the age limits be? How should those vehicles be allowed to operate? What safety equipment should be required, and what standards of training and insurance should be necessary? Those are important questions, and they, too, deserve answers. Today, however, we are dealing with the more immediate issue. The amendment would provide the PSNI with a more effective tool to tackle behaviour that is already illegal and already causing harm in our communities. For that reason, I am pleased to support it. I thank my colleague for tabling it, and I encourage Members to support it.

2,375 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:53 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