Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Peter Martin on 9 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Peter Martin

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 5602210

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I have listened intently to some really great speeches during this important debate, and it has certainly been of a high quality. I will speak briefly on my support for amendment No 90 and then turn to amendment Nos 74 and 75. I imagine that Members and, most importantly, the users of e-scooters, which are obviously the subject of amendment No 90, are patently aware of the challenges that face police officers when trying to apprehend those users, as chases sometimes evolve that can endanger the safety of the police and the individuals they are trying to apprehend. There are significant limitations in the actions that the PSNI can undertake to pursue the individuals who are on those vehicles. Offenders know that, at times, the police cannot really pursue them due to the risk of personal injury or injury to the users themselves.

Like many others in the Chamber, I have had contact, through my constituency office, with members of the public who have been, frankly — I will use the word because it was used in one of the many emails that I got — "tortured" by the users of such devices. People asked me to raise the matter in the Assembly, although I doubt that many of those people will be watching Assembly TV at 7.45 pm on a Tuesday. I am not sure whether 'Coronation Street' is still on; other TV programmes are available. The police have to be empowered to take action when such vehicles are used in an antisocial way. That cannot simply be left to the police as an operational matter when they have not been given appropriate powers to act. Therefore, once the police have apprehended the offenders, they should have, in the first instance, enhanced powers to seize the e-scooters, which is exactly what amendment No 90 will allow them to do. The message will soon get through to inconsiderate users of such vehicles that they will lose their e-scooter, e-bike or e-scrambler; apparently, such things can be expensive. I reflect on the fact that amendment No 90 has cross-party support, and, therefore, I ask all Members to support it. Amendment Nos 74 and 75 are sensible, proportionate and necessary measures to strengthen road safety across Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to my constituency colleague Stephen Dunne and to the Chair of the Committee for Justice, Paul Frew, who is wandering around the Chamber chatting to Members — I hope that Hansard got that one — who tabled the amendments. As Members are more than acutely aware, Jaidyn Rice — my constituency colleagues Stephen and Connie referenced her, as did Julie — was just 16 years old when she was knocked down and killed on Bangor ring road in July of last year. Jaidyn was an army cadet with a very bright future. She was involved in youth and community work with the DICE Futures project in North Down, and I know that members of the North Down Community Network still feel her loss acutely. My colleague read a quote that described Jaidyn; it is interesting that I have written down exactly the same quote. She was described as:

"a light in this broken and sometimes dark world".

What a lovely thing to say as an epitaph. I will pause briefly to recognise the amazing efforts of Jaidyn's mother, Elaine, her grandmother, Judith, and the wider family, who have, rightly, been relentless in keeping the memory of Jaidyn alive. Since Jaidyn's death, Stephen and I have attended several meetings with family members, at which Elaine and Judith have made very clear their view that a change in the law is needed. I thank the Justice Minister for taking one of those meetings and the Infrastructure Minister for taking another. Elaine and Judith are calling on the Assembly to make drug testing automatic in the case of collisions resulting in death or life-changing injury. As has been said numerous times this evening, the change could be called Jaidyn's law in memory of that very much loved and well remembered teenager from Bangor. I sincerely hope that we are successful in that regard. At the centre of the debate on amendment Nos 74 and 75 is a straightforward but important question: are we doing enough to prevent those who have taken drugs and are therefore impaired by them from getting behind the wheel of a car and putting the lives of other people at risk? I believe that we absolutely can do more. I also believe that the amendments offer practical steps to address that challenge.

I thank the Justice Minister for her comments on the assessment of effects, in answer to a question from one of my colleagues on the individuals concerned who could be tested at the roadside for those substances. In answer to those comments, she will know as well as I do that that is for Committee Stage, and, at Further Consideration Stage, those can be worked out. I believe that, with good purpose and congenial working, we can undoubtedly find a way through that. For decades, governments and legislators across the UK have worked hard to change public attitudes to drink-driving, for example. That has been referred to on a couple of occasions even during this debate. Education and enforcement legislation made it increasingly clear that driving under the influence of alcohol is wholly unacceptable. Thirty years ago, that was not the case. Thirty years ago, people might have taken a drink, or several drinks, and got into a car and driven home, but very few do that now. Why is that? It is mainly because of a change in attitude to say that drink-driving is wrong. Some of us in the Chamber are old enough to remember the very hard-hitting TV adverts that we were exposed to during that time. They played their part, and I believe that they were successful. Today, police officers, road safety organisations and victims' groups all recognise that drug-driving poses a clear and legitimate threat to public safety. Whether the drugs involved are illegal substances, controlled drugs or strong medication taken in a manner that impairs a person's ability to drive, the consequences, as have been reflected by the Assembly, are, frankly, devastating. The reality is — Members have noted this — that a motor vehicle in the hands of an impaired driver becomes, quite frankly, a lethal weapon. In fact, a car is a lethal weapon even when driven properly. That is why we must be so careful on our roads. When someone chooses to drive while affected by drugs, they not only take a risk with their own safety but put passengers, pedestrians, cyclists and other motor users in danger. Every family and person driving on our roads has a right to expect that those around them are fit to drive and are capable of doing so. That is why I support amendment No 74. The amendment will provide the PSNI with the power to conduct drug testing at authorised checkpoints using saliva-testing devices. It will create a framework whereby checkpoints can be established only with the written authorisation of a PSNI officer of at least inspector rank. It will also require that the locations, dates and operating times of those checkpoints be clearly specified, and it provides that testing may only be conducted by uniformed officers at that authorised checkpoint. Those are very important safeguards. As we know, legislation that is created in the Chamber must have checks and balances. I believe that the amendment is targeted and proportionate. It is not an unrestricted power. It is a carefully constructed power designed to deal with a very specific public safety concern while maintaining accountability and public confidence. One of the strongest arguments in favour of amendment No 74 is that it addresses a very practical challenge faced by police officers. Drug impairment, as has been acknowledged in the Chamber, not least by the Justice Minister, is more difficult to identify than alcohol impairment. While alcohol can be detected through observable signs, drug impairment can be much harder to recognise. Providing officers with the ability to conduct preliminary saliva tests at authorised checkpoints gives them an effective means of identifying drivers who may be under the influence of drugs. It will also enhance PSNI capabilities and increase the likelihood that dangerous drivers will be detected before they cause harm. It will be too late in the case of Jaidyn and Enda, but not too late for others. However, the true value of the powers lies not only in detection but in deterrence. People who currently think that it is OK to take drugs, get behind the wheel of a car and drive may have to reflect on that and change their attitude. Enforcement changes behaviour, and visible enforcement can change behaviour even more. The existence of authorised drug-testing checkpoints will send out a crystal clear message to everyone in Northern Ireland that drug-driving will be actively targeted and individuals who choose to engage in such behaviour may face serious consequences. Every collision that is prevented is a family spared grief, a victim spared injury and a community spared loss. I will turn briefly to amendment No 75, which complements the previous amendment and strengthens it a little further. It alters the current framework that governs preliminary tests by creating a duty on constables to administer such tests in the specified circumstances that I highlighted earlier, rather than leaving the matter solely to officer discretion at the scene of an RTA. It is an important step because consistent enforcement is a key component of public confidence. The public expect road traffic laws to be applied consistently and fairly. They expect that, where circumstances indicate that testing is appropriate, action will be taken at that point. Whilst police discretion remains an important principle in many other areas of enforcement, there are circumstances where a clear statutory expectation can help with consistency and remove uncertainty. None of us doubts that, if we were involved in a collision — I was involved in one a number of years ago — the police would get you to blow into a little device to check that you had not been drinking. The amendment will create a similar response for drug-driving. It will reduce the possibility of variation between cases and will reinforce the message that road safety legislation will be applied consistently across Northern Ireland. Taken together, amendments Nos 74 and 75 create a coherent and balanced package of measures. One amendment provides the tools for enforcement, and the other ensures that the tools will be used effectively when the circumstances require them. Together, they strengthen our collective response, which is cross-party, to the problem of drug-driving in Northern Ireland. I recognise that some Members may have concerns about civil liberties and personal freedom, and I am more than aware of those concerns because I take them very seriously. In this case, the vast majority of our citizens who drive do not take substantial quantities of drugs before getting behind the wheel of a car and have nothing to fear from such a test. However, such concerns should not be dismissed lightly. When the House considers granting additional powers to law enforcement, it is right that we properly examine those powers before they are granted to ensure that they are justified, proportionate, and accompanied by safeguards. The proposals in the amendments meet that test. The powers that have been proposed are not arbitrary; they are very limited in scope, subject to authorisation requirements and focused on a very specific public safety objective. The inconvenience caused to law-abiding motorists will be very minimal. In contrast to that, the potential for preventing collisions, reducing injuries and saving lives is incredibly significant. In weighing up those competing considerations, the balance falls firmly in favour of action. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am conscious that it is approaching 8.00 pm. Do you want me to wind up my remarks?

You want me to keep going. I understand.

I believe that colleagues are keen for me to keep going. I am only kidding. I will drop a couple of pages. No legislation can eliminate all risk on our roads, and no amendment can guarantee that no collision will ever happen again. We know that, but, where we have the opportunity to strengthen enforcement, provide deterrence and enhance public safety through proportionate measures, surely we should do that. We can do nothing retrospectively. We cannot bring people back who have already been lost to RTAs in dreadful circumstances in Northern Ireland, but we can plan for the future and try to make that future safer and more secure. For those reasons, amendment Nos 74 and 75 are sensible, balanced and justified. They strengthen this place's response to drug-driving, support the work of the PSNI and promote consistency in enforcement. The amendments are not only the right thing to do but would provide a powerful and fitting legacy for Jaidyn Rice: safer roads in Northern Ireland. Surely everyone in the Chamber should aspire to that. I therefore urge all Members of the House to support the amendments and send a clear and unequivocal message that drug-driving has no place on the roads in Northern Ireland.

2,210 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