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 60 of 79.
“I intend to bring forward integrated, single, clearer environmental permitting and a consistent system that is easier to understand and does not compromise or concede on environmental standards but leads to better environmental outcomes. <BR /> <BR />I will take a few minutes to talk through the elements of the Bill, beginning with the powers of entry, which are a valuable tool for environmental regulators, enabling them to enter premises and carry out inspections, searches, the collection and retention of evidence etc. In the current system, businesses and organisations are subject to a multitude of powers of entry under 50 pieces of environmental legislation. The multitude and variety make it difficult for individuals and businesses to understand and implement the law.”
“<BR /> <BR />A good modern regulatory system in the 21st century should ensure that, if you regularly comply with environmental legislation, you have less burdensome regulation and that, if you regularly fail to comply with environmental legislation, you get more attention from the regulator. This is what the Environmental Better Regulation (EBR) Bill is designed to achieve: to support the good guys and go after the bad. <BR /> <BR />Environmental permitting is essential to protect our environment from pollution. Currently, there are separate regimes with different sets of regulatory controls governing waste, pollution prevention and control, water, and radioactive substances. That leads to confusion, duplication and inefficiencies. It can act as a barrier to businesses.”
“<BR /> <BR />What is environmental better regulation? For some, it means less regulation; for others, it means more. To me, it means striking the appropriate balance. Over-regulation delivers as many bad outcomes as under-regulation, and just as often. Regulation needs to be focused on real risks and designed so that it protects the environment. With that in mind, we need an environmental regulatory system that goes beyond being fit for purpose: it must actively support and recognise responsible businesses and their need for swift, well-informed decisions.”
“First, I would like to thank my Executive colleagues for their support in bringing the Bill to the Assembly. I look forward to working with Members in taking it forward. <BR /> <BR />On my appointment as Minister, almost two years ago, I made it clear that I was adopting the following theme for my time in office: a better environment and a stronger economy. It is vital that we grasp the many opportunities that arise from thinking about our environment and the economy together. I see them not as mutually exclusive but as complementary and interdependent. The economy and the environment are inextricably linked. Future economic prosperity and, indeed, our path to recovery out of the current recession, will be aided by having a clean and productive environment, and cleaner, better resource management by businesses.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention and contribution. I thank all Members for the contributions, and I ask the House to oppose clause 16 and support amendment Nos 3 to 27 and Nos 31 to 38.”
“Certainly, in a second. I think the fact that Mr Wilson complemented him on his contribution should certainly give him something to think about.”
“I have to say that I found some of the other points raised by Mr Lunn very interesting, and we will certainly give them full consideration. However, he said that this was silly law, and he may have been clutching at creating ridiculous scenarios to make the law seem silly.”
“There had indeed been a statement from ABI that insurance premiums could decline by as much as 19%, if a full package of GDL was brought forward but, given that what we are talking about now is an already hugely compromised programme of GDL, it is unlikely that any reduction would be of that scale. However, there has been a commitment from insurers that, as claims reduce, so will premiums, and it is envisaged that this will lead to a reduction in claims. <BR /> <BR />Mr Lunn questioned whether these restrictions work at all. Earlier, I pointed to other jurisdictions that have taken the bold step of introducing passenger restrictions and the success that they have had in improving road safety as a result of doing so.”
“A number of complex issues are being considered and legal advice is being sought on a range of issues, such as the timing of adding and removing points from licences and further examination of core process issues. I am extremely frustrated, as I am sure that the Member, and all right-thinking Members, will be that it is taking this long. I know that my counterpart in the South is equally frustrated, but I am conscious that we need to get this right, given the level of legal challenge to prosecutions in this area. <BR /> <BR />Another question was about insurance costs.”
“He said that if the Assembly did not get this right or if we should pass it as proposed by me today, we would be facing the ire of the people this legislation will affect. I would much rather face that ire than have to answer to a family somewhere at some stage in the future for not having done all that I could or all that we could to make our roads safer. <BR /> <BR />Mr Attwood made a telling contribution. At this stage, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor and my colleague for recognising the need for, and initiating, this radical legislation to save lives. He recounted today the type of tragedies that motivated him to pursue it. Mr Attwood had a couple of questions, one was on the mutual recognition of penalty points. I continue to work hard on that issue.”
“However, to allay the Member's concerns, I will tell him that the log book must be verified by an approved driving instructor or a supervising driver, which is someone aged 21 or over with a full licence for three years, and it is envisaged that that will be a parent or friend. He spoke about peer pressure and the fact that family members might be inclined to put on as much, if not more, pressure as friends or contemporaries. From my experience, I would have thought that family members might be more inclined to tell tales if I were driving too fast. <BR /> <BR />Mr Wilson also spoke about amendment No 15. Our view is that, without amendment No 15, the Bill would not get Royal Asset.”
“Concerns had been expressed earlier in the legislative process that an overly prolonged mandatory minimum learning period and a minimum required number of lessons, which had been floated again at an earlier stage during the debate, might have a prohibitive cost attached. <BR /> <BR />Mr Wilson said how passing the test was the best thing that happened to many young people. You have to recognise that we are trying to protect young people from what would undoubtedly be the worst thing that could ever happen to them. If saving lives is not a compelling case, I do not know what is. He also told us that he is concerned about the impact of the legislation on low-income families. Coming from the champion of Tory austerity policies that will reduce further the income that those families get, I found that quite rich.”
“I think that my colleague Mr Maginness summed it up pretty well when he spoke about the merits of the detail and the motivation behind the legislation being proposed and the amendments that I brought forward, but then he said that it was all those things but was not perfect. I accept that it is not, and if there is a way that we can work together and work with others to ensure that it gets as close to perfect as possible, then I am prepared to go there. I look forward to the Member's support and assistance in getting there. <BR /> <BR />In an intervention, Mr McCrea alluded to the potential financial burden on learner drivers, although I think that he was more worried about the financial burden on their parents.”
“If this displays a lack of understanding on my part, I accept that, and that is why I am prepared to meet. I cited the young farmers' group just as an organisation, because I know that they have one. I am happy to meet other organisations. <BR /> <BR />I am sorry; I had not quite answered all of the question put to me by Mr Allister as to what exactly I am offering. I am offering to look again at the legislation. I think that any compromise, as he said, or any accepted improvement by the House will also have to be evidence-based. Legislation has to be based on evidence and, therefore, amendments to it should be evidence-based also.”
“I thank the Member for that intervention. I was not aware that he was a distant past president of the young farmers' union.”
“Anyone in the House who has heard me give any commitment on anything in the House will know that I generally fulfil them or, at least, always try to fulfil them, until I am voted down when I try to do so. There was another red herring about increasing —”
“One wee minute, Mr Allister. I am thinking primarily of the young farmers' lobby. I remind the House that the farmers' lobby was also outright in their opposition to the thought of having to wear helmets while they were on quads. I know that that is a crusade that Mr Wilson fought and lost at the last stage.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. I displayed in my earlier contribution, and I will reiterate as my winding-up speech progresses, my commitment to work with Mrs Overend, who has brought this amendment; other members of the Committee; non members of the Committee, whose input we could have done with at a much earlier stage, it transpires; and non Members — the groups that Members have been talking and listening to; and who may have inspired this amendment and some of the other contributions.”
“I was 18 by the time I passed my test, and I have to confess that it probably took me about six months of driving unaccompanied to build up the confidence to let my mates into the car with me for fear that they would slag my driving. We are talking about a six-month restriction that could and, I have no doubt, would save lives.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Indeed, I commend the young people to whom he refers who pass their test, work hard and try to save all they can for a car. I was 17, probably not as long ago as the Member was, but I have to confess that I was 18 by the time I passed my test.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have to ask this: how do young people in rural areas go to school, extracurricular activities, church or GAA clubs before they pass their driving test? Do they just get a new lease of life when they pass their test at 17 and a half? After listening to Members' contributions today, one would have to wonder.”
“I thank the Member for the intervention. I had not stated that there was any difference between what Mr Wilson and Lord Morrow said; I just said that I could not help but recall Lord Morrow's words after Mr Wilson's contribution and then echoed those words. <BR /> <BR />I have no doubt in my mind that, like all of us, Mrs Overend, whose amendment has been the source of most of today's debate, wants to protect young drivers and, indeed, all drivers and road users. She mentioned opposition to the public consultation in 2012 on restrictions but it is to be expected that, any time there is consultation on restrictions of any nature, there is often huge opposition. That does not necessarily mean that they are a bad thing.”
“In a second, Lord Morrow. While there has been agreement and consensus from the Committee that there is a requirement for restrictions, it seems that Mr Wilson was chipping away at the idea of any restrictions whatsoever. I give way.”
“I thank Mr Wilson for that intervention. It is evident that there is confusion, and I certainly agree with Lord Morrow that we need to bring forward legislation that is as robust and effective as possible.”
“<BR /> <BR />Then, we had Mrs Overend's contribution. Of course, Mrs Overend has —”
“Mr Beggs made a further intervention in Mr Maginness's speech — he had intervened with me earlier — to say that this could result in more people walking around in rural areas. If Chuck Feeney had heard that intervention, he might be looking for his money back. <BR /> <BR />There is no total ban on young drivers carrying passengers; that is something else that I have to get out there. In one of Mr Wilson's many interventions, he asked about the small number of fatalities and whether that warranted the introduction of these restrictions. I could not help but recall Lord Morrow's words as we debated the first group of amendments. He said that we needed to bring forward the strongest and most robust legislation that we can so that we are not found wanting at a later date. I ask the Members on the opposite Benches to think those words over.”
“This type of legislation is about changing attitudes and mindsets more than it is about criminalising drivers or catching people doing something wrong. <BR />I welcome Mrs Cameron's contribution, in particular her plea to Mrs Overend to hold fire on her amendment pending further examination of evidence and a collaborative effort to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of parties and for people's safety. I welcome Mr Milne's support for my amendments and his recognition of potential problems should Mrs Overend's amendment be carried in isolation. <BR /> <BR />Mr Maginness stated that the Committee agreed that there should be some restrictions — that is evidence that the Bill has passed through Committee Stage — but it appears now that the debate is around how much we restrict the restrictions.”
“There are questions on practicality and enforcement in every piece of road safety legislation, I will dare to say. I do not know whether the Member herself or anyone here has ever crept over the speed limit and asked themselves how it is enforced. How practical or enforceable was the mandatory wearing of seat belts, for example? What impact has it had? How many lives has it saved? <BR /> <BR />What is clear, given the evident lack of clarity or understanding on any passenger restriction proposals, is that, regardless of whether clause 20 goes through unamended, the amendment is carried, or it is subject to further amendment, whatever goes through and whatever we end up with, there will need to be a prelude through a serious information and education campaign in advance of any legislative change being introduced.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Members for the questions and the issues that they raised in the debate on this group of amendments. I wish to comment on a number of points mentioned by Members. There have been quite a number of points raised; I am not sure whether I will manage to address them all as I try to sum up tonight. For those that I do not manage to get to tonight, I will certainly get back to the Member in question in writing after checking Hansard. <BR /> <BR />The first contribution was from Anna Lo, the Chair of the Environment Committee. For her, like many who followed her, the focus was on clause 20 and the proposed passenger restrictions, which she described as overly bureaucratic, convoluted and difficult to enforce.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 27, which amends clause 23, is a further technical amendment. It is a wording change that clarifies that any amendment of primary legislation should be subject to Assembly debate. <BR /> <BR />Those are the amendments in group 2.”
“Since it was drafted, however, the Immigration Act 2014 has been passed by Westminster. That Act has already inserted a new article with the same number into the 1981 Order. Therefore, we need to renumber our new clause as 13B and make consequential numbering changes. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 26 inserts new clause 22A. The new clause amends article 110 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which makes general provisions relating to any subordinate legislation made under the 1995 Order. The new clause provides that subordinate legislation made under the order should be subject to draft affirmative procedure in the Assembly rather than affirmative procedure. That reflects a recommendation by the Examiner of Statutory Rules. It is consistent with provisions in other Bills that are being brought through the Assembly.”
“Amendment Nos 16 to 25 collectively amend clause 21, which enables the Department to offer new drivers approved courses as an alternative to revocation of their licence. However, some new drivers are driving on the basis of their pass certificate because they have not yet been issued with or even applied for their full licence. As things stand, those drivers could not be offered a course as an alternative to revocation. That is not the policy intent. Therefore, I propose to amend the Bill to provide for their inclusion in the provision. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I will deal with the key technical amendments in the group. Amendment Nos 8 to 11 are essentially renumbering provisions. The Bill, as introduced to the Assembly, inserts a new article 13A into the 1981 Order.”
“Given that disqualifications in Great Britain and Northern Ireland are mutually recognised, we need to amend the clause so that it includes the equivalent GB legislation and ensures that drivers issued with licences from either authority are treated equally.”
“The amendment therefore amends clause 20 to provide that the restrictions apply only to those who have passed a NI or GB test of competence. <BR /> <BR />I will now deal briefly with amendment Nos 4 and 5, which simply amend clause 17 to also refer to an equivalent GB provision. The Bill as drafted removes the minimum learning period if a driver is required to take their driving test following disqualification. The amendments ensure equal treatment for Northern Ireland drivers who have been disqualified under GB legislation when driving on GB roads and are retaking their test here in the North. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 13 and 14 are very similar to those that I have just discussed. They deal with the disapplication of restrictions as laid out in clause 20 for drivers who are requalifying following disqualification.”
“<BR /> <BR />The purpose of amendment No 15 is to ensure compliance with the requirements of the third EU driving licence directive. The Bill as drafted places a range of restrictions on newly qualified drivers, such as the passenger restrictions that we have discussed and displaying a plate. These are covered in clause 20. Clause 20 also defines what is meant by "newly qualified drivers". The definition as drafted in the Bill includes new drivers from other European states. However, the third EU driving licence directive requires that driving licences should be mutually recognised across member states. We have now been advised that that means that we cannot impose our restrictions on licences that have been issued by other member states.”
“I can assure you however that the relationship between age and collision risk is well established. Full licensing age varies widely across countries. It averages around 16 years old in America but is 18 for all but five European countries. There is an international trend towards increasing the full licensing age due to the safety benefit that can be achieved. I also consider the impact on mobility to be small: only around 4% of those aged between 17 and 17 and a half currently hold a full driving licence. <BR /> <BR />I therefore ask you to support the amendments together with the consequential amendments. I believe that the legislation is striking the right balance between keeping people safe on our roads and not prohibiting or delaying mobility unduly.”
“However, given that I have tabled an amendment to reduce the minimum period under clause 17 from 12 months to 6 months, the arguments for reducing the provisional licensing age no longer carry the same weight. I therefore propose to retain the provisional driving age at 17. I am happy to say that the Committee for the Environment was in full agreement with that approach. <BR /> <BR />International research evidence suggests that any rise in the full licensing age will have a positive impact on reducing road collisions, and, by making the combination of amendments to clauses 16 and 17, I can still deliver that increase in the full licensing age to 17 and a half. That is consistent with the original objective of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I acknowledge that there has been some debate on whether the age increase is necessary.”
“This means that the provisional licensing age will remain at 17, as it is currently. As I said earlier, it is important to consider clauses 16 and 17 and their associated amendments as a package. Clause 16, as originally introduced, reduced the provisional licensing age to 16 and a half but, combined with clause 17, which required the provisional licence to be held for a minimum of 12 months before the practical test could be taken, effectively raised the full licensing age to 17 and a half. <BR /> <BR />The combination of measures as introduced meant that learners could start availing themselves of practice at an earlier age, thus building up their on-road experience whilst taking full opportunity of the 12-month minimum period.”
“It will still deliver significant road safety benefits when combined with other measures such as the programme of training in clause 18. It also limits the need for an extensive exemptions regime, whilst ensuring that mobility is not unduly impacted. I recall that the need for multiple exemptions to cope with the lengthier 12-month minimum period was noted as a concern by Members at Second Stage and during the scrutiny of the Bill. The Bill provides that any exemptions should be stipulated in subordinate legislation. My officials are currently considering what exemptions will be required, and such regulations will be subject to formal consultation following the enactment of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I now want to deal with my proposal to remove clause 16 from the Bill.”
“I have noted the evidence from rural communities provided to the Environment Committee during its scrutiny of the Bill. It was clear that rural communities felt that that measure would have a disproportionate impact on them. <BR /> <BR />I have also been mindful of the international evidence on the overall effectiveness of GDL systems. That suggests that a lengthier period of nine months to 12 months delivers an additional safety benefit, in that learner drivers gain increased supervised driving experience prior to driving alone. However, the evidence also indicates that a considerable road safety benefit can still be achieved within the 6-month period if implemented as one element of a package of measures such as we have here. <BR /> <BR />My amendment takes account of those issues and reflects the recommendation of the Committee.”
“In addition, amendment No 3 relates to clause 17, which facilitates the introduction of a minimum mandatory learning period. That means that a learner driver must hold a provisional licence for a minimum period prior to taking the practical test. The amendment that I propose will reduce that minimum period from 12 months to 6 months. A number of the other amendments in the group are simply consequential amendments, giving effect to that amendment elsewhere in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I have listened carefully to the views of members of the public, key stakeholders and the Environment Committee with regard to the appropriate length of the minimum period. Concerns were raised from various quarters that a 12-month period could pose difficulties for large numbers of learners by restricting their mobility for an excessive period.”
“<BR /> <BR />I turn to enforceability and the perceived difficulties in conveying the information around passenger restrictions. There has been a bit of that. I remember that, at a previous stage in the House, I was getting questions on permutations of passengers that almost sounded like 11-plus questions. It has been debated by several of the Members here. With reference to the amendment, I think that to further complicate the restriction by specifying time periods could only add to the enforcement and education challenges. However, again, that is something that we will look at. <BR /> <BR />I move on now to the other issues in the group. The effect of the removal of clause 16 is that the current provisional licensing age of 17 years will be retained.”
“I thank the Member for that intervention. I thought that I had given that commitment, but I will certainly reiterate it: I am happy to meet Members, to go to the Committee and to have officials go to the Committee to share that evidence further or to share further evidence in order to get a way forward on this. It is an issue that needs to be tackled. People will be glad to see that we are making efforts to tackle it, but they will be extremely glad to see that we are making efforts to pass legislation that is robust and effective — to use Lord Morrow's words — that it is being interrogated and that we are working collaboratively to ensure that it is as good as it can be when it finally secures passage through the House.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention, and I am sure that Chuck Feeney will be glad to know that his money is being spent well. <BR /> <BR />I concur with the Member. I am certainly happy to share all the evidence available to me with Members as we strive to find a way forward on the issue that will save lives but which will not impact negatively and unnecessarily on how people go about their day-to-day lives. It is imperative that as many people as possible have lives to go about on a day-to-day basis.”
“As I said, I am happy to do that. I do not think that anyone wants to see the House divide on or bicker over this type of legislation. As I said, we all share a common goal and motivation, which is to get legislation through that works and that saves lives. I am confident that, as drafted, the Bill can do that. I recognise that the intent behind the amendment is also to do that and to strike a balance. As I said, I have already sought to achieve that balance, and I remain committed to achieving it through further work with the Committee, other interested Members and other interested groups.”
“— legislation that is workable and that works. Over the summer and following this stage of the debate and prior to Further Consideration Stage, I will certainly give further consideration to the clause, even if that requires further evidence being given to the Committee and further evidence and soundings being taken from the Committee. It is vital that we get something that best serves our young people and other road users. Mr Ramsey.”
“I do not doubt the Member's motivation or the rationale behind the amendment. I know that everyone in the House wants us to have —”
“All that would be happening at what is already established as the most dangerous period of the day.”
“The age profile of the passengers referred to in my latest paragraph is similar to or the same as the one that I referred to earlier; we are talking about younger passengers as well as younger drivers. We certainly do not want to be in a position in which the amendment is supported and we inadvertently increase the number of fatalities. Picture the scene in which young people speed to drop off their passengers quickly so as not to break the law by having passengers in the car at 10.00 pm —”
“I can share only the evidence that I have received. It is also worth pointing out that, if you were to take another eight-hour period, such as 2.00 pm to 10.00 pm, you would find that a higher number of passengers were killed during this time. Dig a bit further and you will find that the single hour when most passengers were killed or seriously injured by 17- to 24-year-old drivers was between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm. We certainly do not want —”