Mark Durkan
Foyle · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“That review involved an extensive engagement exercise with charities, regulators and funders, aimed at creating a more modern and proportionate regulatory system.”
“When the review was commenced in 2021, many organisations were still in the midst of responding to the pandemic. Since then, they have faced a succession of new and evolving challenges. The ending of European funding programmes, on which so many in our communities relied for decades, has left a significant gap.”
“<BR /> <BR />The broad principles behind the Bill are sensible. The changes will modernise charity regulation, strengthen the Charity Commission's ability to intervene where misconduct or mismanagement occurs, improve information sharing and, importantly, reduce unnecessary red tape, particularly for smaller charities with limited adminis…”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak today. Before turning to the detail of the legislation — there will not even be that much detail in the debate today at Second Stage — I pay tribute to our charity sector. Across every constituency, charities provide support that changes and saves lives every single day.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst the SDLP supports legislation that removes unnecessary bureaucracy, we should not kid ourselves that administrative reform alone will secure the future of charities and organisations in the voluntary and community sector.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Like other Members, I welcome the fact that we have reached this point. There seems to be consensus among Committee members and, I am sure, all Members that the introduction of these measures will save lives, which begs the question of whether the 10-year delay in introducing the measures had an opposi…”
The complete record
Every one of 3,938 lines we hold for Mark Durkan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 53 of 79.
“Quite a few Members have touched on the importance of communicating the changes. That is, of course, vital. In my opening speech, I said that a communication strategy is being developed, and the Committee will of course be consulted on that. I value very much the opinion of the Committee on many things, if not everything, that I do as Minister. That has been reflected, not just today but over the past couple of days, when we have managed to progress with legislation. It has not always been easy, but we have a very positive and constructive relationship. That relationship is something that I have very much enjoyed throughout the passage of the Bill. It has taken quite a while to get here, but I am glad that we are here. <BR /> <BR />We do not have to wait for the Department to communicate these changes or, indeed, the road safety message.”
“I thank Members for their contributions to the debate, not just today but throughout the legislative process. I also thank Committee staff and my departmental officials, who have faced a barrage of ridiculous questions, especially on the passenger restrictions — and those were just from me.”
“The campaign, which will air from mid-March, will inform the target audience of the dangers of peer passenger distraction with the view to influencing attitudes, positively changing behaviours and assisting with winning the moral argument prior to the legislation becoming operational. <BR /> <BR />I have nothing further to add at this stage, although, naturally, I am happy to respond to any remaining questions that Members may wish to ask. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.”
“I noted my commitment, when we last debated the Bill, to consider how best to educate young drivers on the risks of driving with peer passengers. I also wanted to consider how that process of education could and should be developed prior to the restriction becoming operational. I am pleased to announce some progress in this area. I have commissioned research to ascertain the most prevalent behaviours for those "at risk" groups. These findings will be used to inform a new campaign, designed to improve the safety of young drivers and their young passengers when using our roads.”
“Right from the start, in considering the detail of passenger restrictions, I have been very conscious of the need to improve road safety without unduly impacting on mobility. Inevitably, this has meant that some of the provisions — in particular the passenger restrictions on new young drivers — are more complex than I would have liked. However, following Mrs Overend’s amendment and my subsequent review of that amendment, I believe we have struck the right balance. I am grateful to Members for their interest in and collective scrutiny of these provisions. <BR /> <BR />That said, I think that most Members were struck by the proportion of passenger fatalities and serious injuries that were due to young drivers.”
“The provisions contained in this section of the Bill are designed to help prepare drivers for the challenge of driving without supervision and to protect them, and others, as they gain experience. <BR /> <BR />Briefly, then, the Bill provides for a six-month mandatory minimum learning period and the introduction of a programme of training, which will be evidenced by a log book. It also removes the current 45 mph restriction for learner and restricted drivers, which means that lessons can be taken on motorways, provided, of course, that the learner driver is accompanied by an approved driving instructor. In addition, it introduces a passenger restriction for new young drivers during the first six months post test. This issue, in particular, generated significant interest and discussion at Consideration Stage.”
“So, we are on safe ground in making this change to the legislative framework. <BR /> <BR />I will now turn to Part 3 of the Bill, which deals with learner and new drivers. Members will be aware that the Bill provides for a new graduated drive licensing scheme (GDL). This is, in effect, a package of measures designed to ensure that new drivers acquire the experience and skills that they need, over time, in low-risk environments. I have commented extensively in the past on the rationale for GDL, so Members will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to cover that ground again in any great detail. The fact is that young and inexperienced drivers are significantly overrepresented in road traffic collisions.”
“This new power will greatly increase the risk of being stopped and being caught. This combination of lower limits and more routine checking will, I believe, create a much more effective deterrent to those who continue to think that they can drink and drive. <BR /> <BR />I also welcome the amendment passed by the Assembly at Consideration Stage, which provided for the removal of the statutory option. Members will recall that, at present, this allows a driver whose breath alcohol reading is marginally above the legal limit to opt for a blood or urine specimen to replace the breath specimen. I very much welcome our collective decision to remove that statutory option. That decision reflects the reliability of modern breath testing equipment, clear legal opinion and the fact that no other jurisdiction in the EU has equivalent provision.”
“At present, the police can test only if they reasonably suspect that the driver has consumed alcohol — if they have stopped a vehicle for a moving traffic offence — or if there has been a collision.”
“Its measures will help to reduce drink-driving, protect young and inexperienced drivers and make our roads a safer place. Let me focus first on the new drink-driving regime as reflected in Part 2. Since the turn of the century in 2000, drug- and drink-driving has caused over 2,000 deaths and serious injuries. As I said when I launched the new anti-drink-driving advert in Derry last month, people need to realise that they cannot take chances by having a drink and then getting behind a steering wheel. The Bill's measures back that up. Part 2 provides for two new lower drink-driving limits and a new graduated penalty regime. That means that the penalty for any offence will reflect the amount of alcohol involved. It also gives the police powers to establish roadside checkpoints to provide for breath checking.”
“Those are not just numbers; they are real people. They are lives lost and families and communities shattered. Our thoughts and prayers are with those families at this very difficult and dark time. I and others in the Chamber know how difficult it is to come to terms with such loss. Our hearts go out to all those who have lost loved ones and those who are suffering serious injuries through road tragedy. <BR /> <BR />I want to look to the future. The vision that I have is encapsulated in the Road to Zero campaign. The campaign has only one aim: zero road deaths. There is no acceptable level, and every road death is one too many. Much has already been done to drive down the scale of tragedy on our roads, but we need to do more. This important Bill represents another step in the right direction. <BR /> <BR />What will the Bill do?”
“That said, I believe that it has been time well spent. The Bill has benefited from the close examination that it has received. I take this opportunity to thank the Chair and members of the Committee for the Environment for their detailed scrutiny and for the recommendations in its report. I am glad to say that I was able to take those amendments forward at Consideration Stage, and I believe that the Bill is better as a result. <BR /> <BR />I also thank Members for their helpful contributions to the debates on the Bill in its passage through the Assembly. The end product is legislation that can save lives and reduce injuries on our roads. It is legislation that can make a real difference. We need the Bill to make a difference, because 74 people lost their lives on our roads during 2015, and two people have already died this year.”
“I do not intend to revisit the detail of this important Bill to any great extent this afternoon. The Assembly has already taken considerable care in scrutinising its provisions — rightly so. It has taken some time. The Bill was introduced to the Assembly in May 2014, so we certainly have not broken any speed limits getting it here today.”
“Some anglers from that locality will meet with NIEA officials at our water management unit headquarters on Friday, as we work together on the establishment of a fish kill protocol. <BR /> <BR />Cathal Boylan said that an aim of this Bill was to reduce the complexity of the administrative burden. That is why I am glad that, through these amendments, I can reduce the complexity of the Bill itself a wee bit. We also had fair and positive contributions from Alban Maginness and Sandra Overend. <BR /> <BR />Again, I welcome everyone's participation, not just at today's event but throughout the Consideration Stage. I ask the House to support amendment Nos 1 to 5 and amendment No 7.”
“This is, as Mrs Cameron said, an enabling Bill, but it will be followed by the development of subordinate legislation, supporting measures and guidance to enable NIEA and local councils to change the way they work with business, and all the subordinate legislation will, of course, be subject to full public consultation. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Cameron referred to the depressingly high number of fish kills in her constituency. It is timely that she raises it, given that I met with the Ulster Angling Federation today. The Member and her constituency colleagues will be aware that I have taken a hands-on, practical approach to tackling this scourge of fish kills in that area.”
“In the main, however, this is designed to enable detailed and substantial regulations to be made in respect of a new environmental permitting regime and for regulations to be made to rationalise environmental powers of entry and associated powers following the completion of a review of such powers. The Bill, therefore, delegates numerous powers to the Department to allow those regulations to be made at a future date.”
“She said that the Committee had considered evidence from a range of sources and hosted a stakeholder event. I reiterate my thanks to the Committee under Ms Lo's chairmanship and to the Committee staff, whom this has kept busy. It is complex legislation, as a few Members pointed out. <BR /> <BR />It is fair to say — it was evident today — that engagement between the Committee and the Department has been extremely positive and, ultimately, productive. We aim to achieve the same thing: an improved, streamlined regulatory regime with no compromise on environmental standards. Ms Lo referred to this, as did other Members, as a skeleton Bill: "Skeleton Bill" sounds like a spooky enough character, and he certainly frightened some of the Committee members.”
“I thank Members for their contributions and for the issues they have raised on the amendments. I wish to comment on a number of points mentioned by Members, starting with Ms Lo, who is of course the Chair of the Environment Committee. She described this as important and significant legislation: that is reflected in the crowd that we have in the Chamber to debate it.”
“In view of the wide definition of environmental activities already in the Bill, the Environment Committee questioned the need for paragraph 1 of schedule 1. Following legal advice, I am satisfied, given that very wide definition, that the removal of that provision will not impact the development of the regulations to be made under the Bill. Those are all the amendments.”
“I highlight to Members that enabling provisions of this nature are common and are already included in various environmental legislation, such as the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 and the Environment (Northern Ireland) Order 2002. I am, therefore, satisfied that sufficient enabling powers already exist for the Secretary of State to give directions to regulators in relation to matters of national security. <BR /> <BR />The final amendment is amendment No 7 and relates to paragraph 1 of schedule 1, which gives the Department powers to further define and modify the definition of environmental activities in future regulations.”
“The Environment Committee asked the Department to amend the clause to allow for a degree of Assembly control over the draft code of practice before the final version of the code is published. To address the concerns of the Committee, these amendments require that a draft of the code of practice shall be laid before the Assembly, and, if the Assembly so resolves within the statutory period, no further steps may be taken in relation to the draft code. <BR /> <BR />I advise the House that I am not moving amendment No 6, which relates to new clause 22A and the provision of enabling powers for the Secretary of State to give directions to regulators on matters of national security.”
“The amendment makes the appropriate distinction between the different formulae for expressing the maximum fines applicable to offences that are triable only summarily, with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, and those triable either summarily or on indictment, with a fine that must not exceed the statutory maximum. While both fines are, in fact, £5,000 at the moment, the maxima are quite separate as a matter of law, and the monetary penalties for level 5 and the statutory maximum could diverge in the future. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 4 and 5 relate to clause 12, the powers of entry code of practice that my Department is required to prepare.”
“I agreed to include a new "objective" clause in order to facilitate the Committee's request. New clause 3A has been drafted with this in mind and ensures that any reduction in regulatory burden must be consistent with protecting and improving our environment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 is a technical amendment to clause 8 and is tabled on the advice of the Examiner of Statutory Rules. The Examiner highlighted that, as drafted, clause 8(3) does not clearly distinguish between the different formulae for expressing the maximum fines applicable when an offence can be:”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 has also been proposed by the Environment Committee, which sought to elaborate on the purpose of the Bill on the face of the Bill. Whilst the key purpose of Part 1 is to protect and improve the environment, at the same time, the objective is to reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on those carrying out regulated activities.”
“At the outset, I should advise Members that most of the amendments that we will debate today arise from recommendations made by the Environment Committee. I want to express my appreciation for the work carried out by Committee members and for the timely manner of their consideration of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to amendment No 1, which is a minor drafting amendment to clause 3. Members of the Environment Committee had some concerns regarding the use of the term "as it thinks fit" in referring to consultees. The expression "as it thinks fit" is a very common one in legislation. Its intention is to confer a broad discretion on a person performing a function or exercising a power. However, I have agreed that the offending phrase be removed to make the clause more consistent with wording used in clause 10.”
“I beg to move amendment No 1. At the outset, I should advise Members that most of the amendments —”
“I know many parents across Northern Ireland who will very much welcome this legislation. It will, maybe, back them up when they are trying to impose restrictions of their own on young drivers in their house. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I thank Members for their contributions tonight and for their contributions to this Stage of the debate. This is an extremely important piece of legislation and I am glad to see it progressing through the Assembly.”
“I thank the Member for that contribution. I am sorry, I did not pick up on that; I was busy scribbling other stuff. Undoubtedly, we have seen in today's debate and at earlier stages the complexity of this clause in particular and the difficulty in communicating it. I know that journalists, some more than others, have great difficulty in understanding its implications, so education and communication will be vital. As I outlined in my opening speech, this should form part of the learning process. While young people are learning to drive, they will be made aware of these restrictions and the rationale behind them. There should, then, be a wider public information campaign. It is vital that we get information not only to young people but to their parents as well.”
“Ideally, we would have a measure that went beyond six months but, as the brief sets out, we have developed the measure where the risk posed is greatest, and we had to balance road safety with the mobility concerns that were raised. Young drivers, as Mr Maginness said, are three times more likely to be killed and four times more likely to be responsible for deaths. The restriction adds additional protection during a very high-risk period.”
“The success of those measures is blatantly evident in the dramatic reduction in the number of fatalities on the roads since the dark days of the early 1970s. There are still far too many. One death is one too many. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Overend said that other jurisdictions on these islands will be looking at this, and so they should be. This is a rare example of the Assembly leading the way on these islands. I think that we should be collectively proud of our endeavours in this regard. She also outlined the rationale for her initial amendment, which I had addressed in my initial contribution. <BR /> <BR />I will just respond to a question that Mr Allister asked earlier. It is difficult to say precisely how many lives would have been saved had these measures been implemented.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Boylan referred to the importance of education when it comes to the promotion of road safety. The Department has an education programme that is very extensive but not really expensive. We do a good lot of work in schools through community groups. I referred earlier to our road safety grants programme. I know that the GAA is a particularly active road safety partner of the Department, which, along with the Young Farmers' Clubs, gets our message out to sometimes hard-to-reach areas in the more rural corners of the North. <BR /> <BR />Mr Maginness referred to the sad and shocking statistics that demonstrate the real vulnerability of young people on our roads. He referred to other road safety improvements that we have seen through legislation on seat belts and mobile phones.”
“<BR /> <BR />Pam Cameron reiterated the point that I had made earlier to Mr Lunn that the PSNI is fully supportive of these measures. <BR /> <BR />I have to say that I was completely unaware of Mr Boylan's own recent family tragedy. I offer my sincerest condolences. I know how difficult a time this must be for his whole family. Our thoughts and prayers are with them at this extremely difficult time. He also touched, as did Mr Maginness, on the issue of insurance companies. This evening, I give the House a commitment that I will work with them and other Assembly Members. It is only right that young people should be able to afford to drive. I have no doubt that, as and when young people in general drive more safely, that will translate into a reduction in insurance premiums. It is important that we help that happen sooner rather than later.”
“I welcome the amount of time that the Committee dedicated to this vital piece of legislation and, indeed, welcome its support for the Bill and this amendment of Mrs Overend's amendment. <BR /> <BR />With her Alliance Party cap on, Ms Lo referred to the cynicism that has surrounded, I suppose, pledges or promises from insurance companies that this legislation would inevitably lead to a reduction in insurance premiums. There was, I have to say, a view offered by insurance companies that the full GDL programme and full passenger restrictions would lead to a 19% reduction in insurance premiums but what we have here today — what we are voting on and passing — while very welcome, is a dilution of what was initially envisaged.”
“I thank Members for their contributions and the issues that they have raised in the debate on the amendments. I was expecting more issues to be raised today, but the fact that they have not been raised shows how the issue has been considered by the Committee in depth. In her contribution, Ms Lo, as Chairperson of the Committee, gave an elaborate and accurate account of the Committee's consideration of the proposals.”
“<BR /> <BR />What we have is, I believe, a balance that has not been stumbled upon or hashed together; it is a delicate balance that we have had to carefully consider and work together to achieve. What we have is an approach that is appropriate and proportionate to the problem. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to amendment No 2, which amends the long title. This amendment is required to reflect the fact that no changes are being made to the age at which a provisional licence may be obtained, as agreed at Consideration Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />So what are we left with? We have a passenger restriction that is perhaps not as stringent as I would have liked but will, nonetheless, almost certainly save many families the devastation of losing a loved one. We have a passenger restriction that is balanced. Young people will be free to drive at any time of the day or night on passing their test, but we will offer them some protection as they gain experience by applying a restriction in the first six months post test, when the risk is most marked. During those six months, the new driver is still afforded a high degree of mobility, with freedom to drive themselves but with limitations on carrying multiple passengers between 11.00 pm and 6.00 am.”
“I was criticised for the complexity of the restriction, yet the very purpose of that complexity — the exemptions for family members and suchlike — was to ensure that mobility was not unduly impacted. I considered a number of ways to reduce the complexity, including removing the exemptions or not permitting any passengers, and, whilst some of these amendments would certainly have assisted concerns regarding enforceability, there would have been a considerable impact on mobility. Based on the feedback that I have had on the meetings held with officials and the meetings that I have been involved in, I believe that there is an acknowledgement that balance is difficult to achieve and that any attempt to make the measure simpler would have the unwanted effect of reducing mobility. Clearly, members do not want that.”
“It will highlight and bring home the real and devastating effects that careless drivers can have not just on themselves but on friends and families. Very sadly, as the two fatal collisions in recent months involving young drivers with peer passengers show, the risks are very real and something that we as legislators should not shy away from. <BR /> <BR />I appreciate that I have spoken for quite some time now; I am almost done but I want to reflect on a few additional points and explain why, despite an extensive review of the clause during which every point raised was considered thoroughly, I have not brought any other amendments. The crux of the matter is that the majority of the issues raised were mutually exclusive.”
“I have asked them to ensure that dealing with driver distraction forms an integral part of the programme of training and that the restrictions are clearly communicated to young drivers in preparation for and on passing their test. Furthermore, I will consider how best to educate young drivers on the risks of driving with peer passengers and whether we can start that process of education before the passenger restriction becomes operational. <BR /> <BR />I was pleased to announce in October that a number of projects would be progressed this year, funded by my Department's road safety grant scheme. These grants seek to engage and empower individuals and organisations to practise good road user behaviour. It is particularly pertinent that one of those projects, Love your Passenger, Love Yourself, relates to what we are discussing today.”
“The additional evidence that has been produced over the last number of months only reaffirms for me the important role that a passenger restriction has in protecting drivers and their passengers in the early days of driving without supervision. By restricting the carriage of multiple peer passengers until six months post test, I believe that drivers will have gained valuable additional experience and will be more ready to deal with the distraction that carrying passengers inevitably creates. Although the restriction will now be applicable only at night, I still believe firmly that it will save lives. <BR /> <BR />I have discussed with my officials other ways of tackling this passenger problem in parallel to the legislation being brought forward.”
“However, Members should note that, although I am proposing this amendment, I do not want them to underestimate the very real risks posed by and to young drivers carrying young passengers.”
“I thank the Member for that intervention. He is not convinced that the police are sure about this, but I am not sure what he bases that on. I am convinced that they are, through continuous engagement — personally and through my officials — with the PSNI on the issue. The PSNI is a valued and valuable road safety partner of the Department. We work very closely with it on a range of our road safety activities.”
“I thank the Member for that question. The reaction of the PSNI to the proposals has been consistent throughout. It accepts and admits that there will be difficulties with enforcement. However, as I outlined when addressing Mr Allister earlier, this is very much about effecting attitudinal, and then behavioural, change and improvement in drivers and road users. How do the police enforce, for example, the wearing of seat belts? How do they enforce against the use of mobile devices when people are driving?”
“However, I have accepted the representations made on behalf of rural communities and decided to bring forward an amendment to commence the passenger restriction at 11.00 pm rather than 10.00 pm. I want to put some clear blue water between that high-risk hour between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm and the time that the passenger restriction starts. I believe that it makes sense to move the start time to 11.00 pm so that those young drivers and their friends who are still out at social events, work, and so on, can make their way home safely and without the need to resort to risky behaviour to beat the clock. Based on my engagement with the farming groups, the feedback from my review and the comments made by Members at Consideration Stage, I believe that 11.00 pm will represent an acceptable time.”
“It was clearly not the will of the Assembly to have a full, 24-hours-a-day passenger restriction, and I respect that decision. <BR /> <BR />Members will also recall that I urged caution around voting to bring in a time-bound passenger restriction that omitted the highest-risk hour, 9.00 pm to 10.00 pm. I remain concerned that a 10.00 pm restriction may inadvertently increase the number of fatalities as people speed during the most dangerous time of the day — between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm — to drop off their passengers quickly, so as not to break the law by having passengers in the car at 10.00 pm. <BR /> <BR />At one point, I considered bringing forward an amendment to include that hour and to commence the restriction at 9.00 pm, and that is certainly what the road safety evidence points me towards.”
“Indeed, Sandra Overend's amendment at Consideration Stage was, I believe, brought in to try to lessen the impact of the passenger restriction on young people's mobility, particularly their ability to travel for education purposes, sports practice, and so on. I can, of course, appreciate the rationale behind that, but Members will recall that I opposed the introduction of any time-limited passenger restriction, and I still firmly believe — the evidence supports this — that a 24-hour passenger restriction would have had the greatest impact on reducing deaths and serious injuries among younger drivers and their peer-age passengers. However, as I said when we last debated the Bill, the passenger restriction cannot be based on effectiveness alone. It has to be about the balance between road safety and mobility.”
“I considered the feedback from the range of meetings held and appreciate the sentiments and arguments put forward, particularly the need to ensure that mobility is not restricted unduly. I have listened carefully to the concerns about the perceived disproportionate impacts on rural communities. In doing so, however, I have been mindful of the robust evidence of the extent of the road safety problems on our rural roads.”
“I understand that, although Members expressed concerns similar to those already raised, they acknowledged the difficulty of achieving a balance between simplifying the clause and retaining exemptions for family members etc in order to avoid placing even further restrictions on mobility. <BR /> <BR />In the review, I welcomed the support from all involved for the removal of the 45 mph speed restriction, which is a key element of the clause. I think that we can all agree that the ability to train learners to drive up to posted speeds so that they are ready to handle the challenges of driving alone makes absolute sense. <BR /> <BR />The more contentious element of the clause is the passenger restriction.”
“As part of the review, I met representatives from the Ulster Farmers' Union and the Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster. Both groups indicated general support for the Bill but put forward concerns about the impact that the passenger restriction could have on mobility for their members and for rural communities more generally. They asked me to consider the effects of social isolation in rural areas and the impact of the passenger restriction on young people's ability to travel for education purposes and to attend after-school activities, church and sporting events. <BR /> <BR />In the Consideration Stage debate, Members raised issues about the complexity of the clause. I asked officials to explore those issues with Members.”
“I thank the Member for that question. I do not, unfortunately, have that detail here; I will try to get it in time for my winding-up speech. This is about forming driving habits and behavioural change. The first six months after a driver, particularly a young driver, passes their test are extremely important in establishing what type of driver they will be. The first six months are when a young driver is particularly vulnerable to collision. That is borne out by statistics that I will try to get in time for my winding-up speech. <BR /> <BR />There is a particular problem on rural roads, where 78% of those 14- to 20-year-old passengers — 107 young people — were killed or seriously injured while travelling with a young driver deemed responsible. At Consideration Stage, I heard concerns about mobility, particularly in rural communities.”