Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 9 June 2026.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

9 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5602229

Read the official Assembly record

Text

After what feels like a bit of a filibuster over the last hour, I will be as brief as possible while giving Members my assurances on some of the issues that have been raised. I am grateful to the Members for tabling these important amendments, and, while I support any measures that would make our roads safer, the amendments fall within the remit of the Department for Infrastructure. I therefore consulted the Minister for Infrastructure, who advised me that road safety continues to be of paramount importance to her and that she is committed to working proactively to address a range of issues that negatively impact on road safety. The Minister advised that the three proposed amendments on vehicle seizure, preliminary testing for drink and drugs and drug checkpoints also reflect public engagement with her Department on the issue and that she is content with policy intent of the three amendments. Minister Kimmins and I therefore both support the opportunity for the Assembly to engage on and consider each of the amendments as we work collectively to address this life-or-death issue. I want to speak to the amendments in the group in the sequence in which they feature on the Marshalled List. Amendment Nos 74 and 75, tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley, Kingston and Dunne, would amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to insert new clauses relating to drugs testing at authorised checkpoints and a duty to administer preliminary tests. I understand that amendment No 74 would amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to provide powers to the PSNI, when on duty at an authorised checkpoint, to ensure that people cooperate with a checkpoint drugs test. The amendment defines a checkpoint drugs test as obtaining a specimen of saliva analysed by an approved device to determine the presence of drugs in the body. It would be an offence to fail to cooperate with a checkpoint drugs test without reasonable excuse. I understand that amendment No 75 would amend the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to change the intention of article 17 of that Order from providing a power for the PSNI to administer preliminary tests to a duty to administer preliminary tests if, in certain circumstances, a constable reasonably suspects that the person has been driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle and has committed a traffic offence or if an accident occurs. There would still be a power, as opposed to a duty, if a constable reasonably suspects that the person is driving or attempting to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The amendments were tabled on 19 May, and neither my Department nor the Department for Infrastructure has had sufficient time to carry out the usual due diligence on the fitness for purpose of the amendments' wording or the operational implications. However, the PSNI has provided some helpful initial information. The PSNI supports effective preliminary testing where it is lawful, necessary and practical. There is no objection in principle to strengthening the use of preliminary testing or to improving the policy, training and operational capability that supports it. However, the PSNI would have concerns about any amendment that creates an absolute statutory duty that cannot always be met in practice. If legislation states that the police must carry out one or more of the preliminary tests, there would need to be clarity around what happens when that cannot be done for genuine operational reasons. There may be occasions when a test cannot be carried out owing to circumstances on the ground. For example, there may be no suitable device available, an issue with equipment, a medical priority, scene safety concerns or other competing demands at the scene. In those circumstances, there is a risk that officers, despite acting reasonably, could be left open to criticism, legal challenge or unintended consequences. It is important to distinguish between the three types of preliminary test. Preliminary breath testing is well established and already supported by internal PSNI policy. Devices are widely available, and officers are trained in their use from their initial training. The process is also supported by drink-driving limits and evidential breath-testing machines that make next steps clearer following a positive preliminary breath test. It should also be noted that current PSNI policy provides that all drivers involved in a road traffic collision that is attended by the police should be breath-tested. That is reflected in the volume of preliminary breath tests that are already carried out, with 30,363 tests recorded between 1 January 2025 and 31 December 2025. The position is different for preliminary drug testing. The main limitation is, as I mentioned, the absence of a specified drug limit in Northern Ireland such as those available in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. For example, if someone takes codeine, they may test positive for certain categories of drug, depending on the test that is undertaken, even though the codeine may not be impairing their ability to drive. As a result, drug testing cannot currently be used as effectively here as it can in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. The PSNI is actively working on that area with its partners. The longer-term aim is to reach a position in which roadside drug testing can be brought more closely into line with preliminary breath testing. Even with preliminary breath testing, there may be occasions on which suitable equipment is not immediately available. An improperly drafted statutory duty could result in a member of the public being detained longer than is necessary while equipment is sourced or being subjected to another preliminary test simply to satisfy the legal requirement. A preliminary impairment test is also more intrusive than alcohol and drug testing. It requires the person to leave their vehicle and complete a number of tasks, often at the roadside, in public view and in whatever conditions present at the time. In minor cases, particularly where there is no suspicion of impairment, the PSNI is concerned that doing that may not be deemed necessary or proportionate. There is also a practical issue regarding the range of incidents to which it would apply. If the requirement were to apply to collisions, moving traffic offences and cases involving suspicion, it could cover a wide set of circumstances. The scale of the issue is also significant. Between April 2025 and March 2026, there were 38,176 detections for motoring offences in Northern Ireland. Those figures do not include the wider number of motorists who were stopped and spoken to for minor matters, where officers may provide advice or guidance without taking formal action. It appears that a mandatory requirement linked to traffic offences could require officers to carry out preliminary tests even in lower-level encounters in which no formal detection is made. That could remove officer discretion and result in testing that is not necessary. That also needs to be viewed against the current PSNI resourcing position. Officer numbers are already under pressure. Any new legal duty must be something that officers can realistically deliver in practice. The proposal could have consequences for a number of the PSNI's partner organisations, including my Department, Health and Social Care and Forensic Science Northern Ireland. If the amendment creates pressure to roll out roadside drug testing service-wide, that will bring with it additional costs, budgetary pressures and demands for training, equipment, access to forensic medical officers, blood sampling, laboratory analysis and reporting. Under the current legislation, the PSNI advised, a service-wide roll-out of roadside drug testing would not be feasible at this point and could place undue pressure on existing forensic and health service capacity. PSNI understands the intention behind amendment No 75 and supports the principle of having that power available in future should excess limits similar to those for alcohol be legislated for. Under current legislation, however, Northern Ireland does not have such specified drug-driving limits, and enforcement remains focused on people who are driving while unfit through drugs. That means that impairment must be evidenced through the manner of driving. A positive roadside drug test may assist an investigation but, by itself, does not prove the offence or place the case in the same position as drink-driving. Should those powers be introduced, the fact that the motorist will have been stopped at a vehicle checkpoint increases the possibility that no impaired driving was witnessed. The PSNI warns that that could have the unintended consequence of officers having to let motorists proceed, even though they have failed a drug test, owing to the lack of legislation to support an arrest. For that reason, there may be limited practical benefit in introducing drug testing at authorised checkpoints at this stage. The PSNI's view is that, if specified drug limits were to be introduced, that type of power would become much more useful, and the PSNI would be supportive of it forming part of the wider drug-driving framework. It is therefore clear that a lot of operational and further legislative detail is required to be worked through by a number of statutory partners. However, given the support of the Minister for Infrastructure and my deep concern about the need to improve safety on our roads, I am content to support amendment Nos 74 and 75 today and to work through the detail as we proceed. It may be that I will need to table amendments at Further Consideration Stage for the Assembly to consider. If the amendments pass in any form, it is highly likely that it will be necessary to delay their commencement until operational needs can be met. However, I will be clear with the Assembly on these matters at Further Consideration Stage. In the interim, I am happy to engage with the Members who have tabled the amendments so that we can, hopefully, reach a conclusion that is satisfactory to everyone involved. At this stage, I support the amendments, with some practical reservations that, I believe, we can work through. I would prefer to have the provisions on the statute book to allow them to come into operation as soon as is practically possible. The alternative is to wait for primary legislation well into the next mandate, which would delay matters to an unacceptable degree. I now turn to amendment No 90. Mr Patsy McGlone, Mr Paul Frew and Miss Nuala McAllister have tabled an amendment on:

"Seizure of motor vehicles used in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance".

I am grateful to Mr McGlone for providing me with advance notice of his intentions, and I was therefore able to agree and engage with him prior to its tabling. Further, my Department is familiar with the issue, and my officials were able to engage with DFI counterparts and seek the views of the PSNI, which also supports the amendment. The amendment would remove the current requirement under article 65 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 for a warning to be issued prior to the seizure of a vehicle except in limited circumstances. In practice, that would provide the police with greater flexibility to intervene immediately where vehicles are being used in a dangerous, reckless or antisocial manner that is causing significant disruption and distress in communities. We have all heard this evening of the frequency with which that occurs in many of our constituencies. The intention behind the amendment is to strengthen the operational tools available to police in tackling that behaviour and to ensure that enforcement action can be taken more swiftly where appropriate. Parents may be content to buy a scooter for their child and allow them to go out and ride it. I suspect that they will not buy them a second one if the first one is confiscated by the police. Members will agree that the illegal use of scooters and scramblers is a scourge on our communities. The Department has been dealing with a large number of questions and correspondence on the matter, and we have a thorough knowledge of the issues. The intention is simply to strengthen the ability of the police to act swiftly on the issues. It is not limited to e-scooters and scramblers; it relates to all motor vehicles. That will be helpful, as other motor vehicles and other new developments may lead to similar vehicle nuisance occurring in future. The amendment broadly reflects similar provisions in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 passed at Westminster. When I met Mr McGlone to discuss his proposal and on the understanding that the PSNI also supports the amendment, I advised him of my support, subject to further engagement with him by the Department for Infrastructure and PSNI to seek their views. Minister Kimmins has also now indicated her support, and I am therefore happy to commend the amendment to the House.

2,128 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