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 61 of 79.
“I thank the Member for the intervention. As I have explained, or thought I had explained, if this were based solely and purely on road casualty savings, the restrictions would be much more stringent and we would not be allowing any passengers at all. However, we have arrived at what is in the Bill, and at what Mrs Overend hopes to amend, in an attempt — working with the Committee and various groups who gave evidence to it — to strike a balance between mobility and safety on the roads.”
“<BR /> <BR />Looking back over that same period, 2009 to 2013, of all the 14- to 20-year-old passengers killed or seriously injured by the 17- to 24-year-old driver who was deemed responsible for the collision, 37% happened during the curfew period suggested by Mrs Overend. So, just over one third were killed during that period. The effect of the amendment would be to forget about the other two thirds killed during the rest of the day. It is also worth —”
“Certainly, night-time driving poses increased risks to newly qualified drivers. Lower traffic volumes can result in greater opportunities to drive at higher speeds. Night time brings increased social activity, hence an increased number of young people on our roads. Combine that with newly qualified drivers who are lacking in experience, and I agree that it is a recipe for disaster. However, I have studied the effects of applying the passenger restriction to only a specified time during the night, from 10.00 pm to 6.00 am, as Mrs Overend suggests, and it is not something I can support, given the evidence that I have viewed and will share.”
“<BR /> <BR />An exemption applies for close family members and those entitled to a carer's allowance. It also includes the flexibility whereby no passenger restrictions apply if a "relevant accompanying person" is in the front passenger seat. So, I assure you that, if the amendment brought forward by Mrs Overend is to tackle the inconvenience that a restriction will cause, perhaps thinking particularly about the rural community, this has already been given a great deal of consideration during the development and drafting of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The suggested amendment will weaken the effectiveness of the Bill, and is perhaps based mistakenly on the belief that the large majority of fatal and serious collisions involving young drivers carrying young passengers occur during the, or late at, night.”
“I thank the Member for that intervention. Later in the debate, when I come to wind on the group, I will furnish the Member with the detail that he seeks. <BR /> <BR />If casualty savings were my only concern, the passenger restriction in the Bill as introduced would have been much more stringent. A complete ban on new drivers carrying passengers would no doubt be more effective, but I appreciate the need to strike a balance between improving road safety outcomes and retaining mobility for young people and new drivers. That is why the passenger restriction in the Bill is for the limited period of six months. The measure allows for one passenger to be carried before any other restrictions are applied, so young farmers who might be concerned about picking up their girlfriend can rest easy; they will not need a chaperone with them to do so.”
“All new drivers carry the risk of inexperience, but adding other young passengers to that can create distraction and peer pressure to drive faster and so on. To put into context the type of risk I am discussing and the reality of the impact that such driving can have, between 2009 and 2013, 17- to 24-year-old drivers were deemed to be responsible for the deaths of 83% of all passengers aged 14 to 20 who were killed here. I was shocked at the starkness of that figure, and I am sure and can see that many of you here today are as well.”
“At the outset, I will address amendment No 12, which is proposed by Mrs Overend, and explain why I am opposing it. The effect of the amendment would be to make the passenger restriction described in clause 20 applicable only between the hours of 10.00 pm and 6.00 am. Supporting such an amendment would weaken the graduated driver licensing (GDL) regime, lessen the effectiveness of the passenger restriction and, ultimately, lessen the road safety benefit and casualty savings that were likely to be derived based on the Bill as introduced. <BR /> <BR />I am sure that many of you will be aware of the international and local evidence on the risks of new young drivers carrying other young passengers.”
“<BR /> <BR />I concur with Lord Morrow that any legislation that we bring forward in the House, and we would like to bring forward more, should be as effective and robust as possible. He quite rightly pointed out that the past couple of years have seen an increase in the number of deaths on our roads. As effective as the advertisements that he referred to are, they alone cannot address that. The passage and enforcement of legislation such as this is a key component of the toolkit for reducing the number of lives destroyed on our roads and the number of families devastated. <BR /> <BR />I ask the House to oppose clause 3 and support amendment Nos 1, 2, 28 to 30, 39 and 40.”
“Data detailing the number of repeat offenders and sentences handed down between 2007 and 2011 suggested that, in almost one in five repeat drink-driving cases, district judges are indeed exercising discretion and imposing disqualifications that are below the minimum three-year period. In the light of those sentencing trends and the fact that district judges appear content to apply discretion in repeat drink-driving cases, I am satisfied that any concern surrounding a three-year disqualification period being disproportionate in certain circumstances has been addressed. Mrs Overend supported my view on that, I believe, when she said that it is important that we continue to get out what is the key message, which is that people should never ever drink and drive.”
“They have every reason to expect that the law should require that their drivers be fully sober and for it to punish them if they are not. If a person is convicted of a second drink-drive offence within 10 years, the minimum disqualification period, as we have discussed, will be increased to three years. As is currently the case, there is room for discretion. The court may, for special reasons, order a shorter period of disqualification or none at all, depending on the evidence and circumstances. The actual level of discretion exercised by the courts is an issue that my Department and the Environment Committee have explored in order to support the decision-making process on how repeat offenders should be treated under new lower limits.”
“I am sure that everyone will agree that it is not unreasonable to expect professional drivers, whether they be bus, lorry or taxi drivers, to be able to carry out their role professionally and safely at all times. It is only when drivers continue to ignore the risk of consuming alcohol while on duty — thereby representing a particular risk to themselves, their passengers and other road users — that the more stringent three-year ban will apply. That level of professionalism is not a new requirement in the industry. Many commercial companies already operate a zero tolerance policy for drivers on duty. <BR /> <BR />The Department strongly advises people not to drive after having consumed any alcohol. People heeding that advice will often rely on public transport for their journey home.”
“If a three-year ban were to be applied to a first offence at the new lower 20 mg limit, it might be viewed as a disproportionate penalty for a professional driver, but this is not the case. For a first offence at the new lower limit — between 20 mg and 79 mg — a professional driver will be offered a fixed penalty notice that will not result in a criminal conviction, and, importantly, no disqualification period will apply.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr McElduff referred to the participation and contribution of Mr Boylan throughout the passage of the legislation, and I would like to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to Cathal. I am sure that he will be back giving me hell here in no time. I will also check Hansard very closely to ensure that my ears were not deceiving me when I heard the praise bestowed by Mr McElduff on the Department. <BR /> <BR />Mr Maginness raised an issue that I am aware he had raised at Committee and which he has raised with me in the corridors here on more than one occasion: whether the three-year ban on professional drivers might be disproportionate.”
“I thank Members for the questions and issues that they raised in the debate on the first group of amendments, and I will comment on a number queries that they raised. Ms Lo, speaking as Chair of the Committee, outlined very comprehensively the Committee's consideration, and she reiterated the rationale behind its support for my amendments and the removal of clause 3. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Cameron elaborated on evidence heard by the Committee and welcomed changes to the drink-drive limit. In an intervention, Mr McCrea raised the issue of self-testing. I am aware of the availability of such products, but I think that we would all like to get to a point at which, where doubt exists, people should not have to depend on such a device to tell them whether they should be behind the wheel.”
“I thank Mr Allister for his intervention. He will be aware that I am not in a position to give that categorical assurance. I have outlined the PSNI's current practice and I can assure the Member and the House that the PSNI has assured me and, I believe, the Committee that that practice will continue. <BR /> <BR />In passing, I should also mention two of the other amendments in this group. Amendment No 1 is simply a technical drafting amendment, which I am making on the advice of the Office of Legislative Counsel. Its only objective is to ensure consistency with drafting elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment No 29 is a technical amendment to remove a transitional provision in the Bill. The provision is no longer required following the commencement of sections 22 and 23 of the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008.”
“<BR /> <BR />To finish on this issue, in the light of all these factors — clear legal opinion, the strong support of the Environment Committee, other safeguards that remain in place, its recent removal from legislation in Britain and the fact that no other jurisdiction in the EU has equivalent provision — I now propose to remove the statutory option from the legislation here.”
“<BR /> <BR />The safeguards also include the rigorous testing of breath-testing equipment as part of the type-approval process. Indeed, as I mentioned, the technology used in modern breath-testing equipment is advanced, and it is very uncommon for its reliability to be legally challenged. There is also the laboratory margin of error that is built into the blood or urine testing process, which is also reflected in the breath limits. That margin of error is designed to safeguard the driver who for health reasons has had to provide a specimen of blood or urine for analysis against any imprecision in testing machinery. Indeed, the statutory option has never been available to such drivers.”
“Again, I thank the Committee for its detailed scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />In proposing the removal of the statutory option, I am not weakening the protections against marginal error in the operation of breath-testing equipment. There are a number of safeguards built into the process of obtaining evidence that are designed to ensure that only those drivers who are undoubtedly over the limit are brought forward for prosecution in court. The safeguards include a prosecution threshold, which is applied by the PSNI. That currently means that a driver will not be prosecuted unless the lower of two breath samples contains at least 40 micrograms of alcohol, despite the prescribed limit being 35 micrograms. The PSNI will continue to apply an equivalent prosecution threshold at the new limits.”
“Thirdly, the continued operation of the statutory option could force the PSNI in some circumstances to have to close down checkpoints to take the driver to a police station, where the blood or urine test can be carried out. <BR /> <BR />I firmly believe that the statutory option should be removed from drink-driving legislation. In reaching that decision, I have commissioned further legal opinion that suggests that the removal of that statutory option is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. I have listened also to the Environment Committee, which, having considered all the evidence before it, recommended that:”
“That leaves us as the only jurisdiction among all EU member states and all signatories to the convention to retain such an option. <BR /> <BR />Why do we need to remove the statutory option? There are at least three key reasons. First is the reliability of the modern breath-testing equipment. When breath-testing was first introduced, the equipment was not as reliable as it is now, so the alternative of a blood or urine test is therefore no longer necessary. Secondly, the time delay in getting a doctor to come out to a police station to take a blood or urine sample means that the blood:alcohol levels are likely to reduce in the interim. That could mean that drivers who were over the limit at the time that they were stopped end up evading prosecution. That will become more pertinent if we apply the statutory option to the new lower limit.”
“The Bill as introduced retained the statutory option and applied it to the new lower drink-driving limits that are proposed. However, the retention of the statutory option reflected a lack of clarity prior to the introduction of the Bill on whether removal would be compliant with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that is, the right to a fair trial. With that in mind, my predecessor decided that the position should be kept under review during the Bill's legislative passage. Such review could also take into account any legal concerns that might arise during the passage of similar legislation in Westminster. The GB legislation — the Deregulation Act — is now in place, and the statutory option was removed from law in April 2015. No human rights concerns were raised.”
“If the evidential reading is marginally above the legal limit, the law allows the driver to opt for a blood or urine specimen to replace the breath specimen.”
“I think that I have already demonstrated how quickly I would like to get through this. <BR /> <BR />At the outset, I should advise Members that a number 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 />The collective effect of this group of amendments, together with the removal of clause 3, is to remove what is known as the "statutory option" from drink-driving legislation. It may be useful if I explain what the statutory option is. Currently, a driver whose breath:alcohol reading is over the legal limit will normally be arrested and subjected to an evidential breath test.”
“Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. At the outset, I should advise Members that a number of the amendments that we will debate today arise from —”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Givan for his supplementary. Quite rightly, he identifies that both functions to which he refers do not fall within my Department, and, therefore, I cannot lead in their transfer. However, I do, and will continue to, lead in convening the partnership between central and local government and facilitating the conversations that have to take place. As I said, I am not sure that there is a tremendous appetite at this time in local government for assuming new functions in the immediate future. However, I am happy to talk to local government, listen to it and work with it on that.”
“However, we need to do that in close partnership with local government because, as the Member may hear from his colleagues in local government, there is quite a bit of disquiet and discontent about some of the functions that they have received, or, rather, the budgets going with the functions that they have received. Some in local government have the perception, albeit mistaken, that the transfer of functions was used as — can I use the term without offending the Member? — a Trojan Horse for central government to pass cuts on to local government to make.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Givan for his question. In my response to an earlier question, I referred to the establishment of the partnership panel, which comprises Ministers and representatives of each of the 11 new councils. That panel is a very useful tool. It gives Ministers — not just this Minister — an opportunity to hear the concerns of local government and to discuss the opportunities offered by the functions that have already transferred and those that might transfer in the future. <BR /> <BR />A review should be looked at, and it will be looked at within a year of a vesting day in April next year.”
“I thank the Member for his supplementary. As I tried to outline in my initial answer, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and other areas in my Department are working hard, along with other agencies and jurisdictions, to come up with a producer responsibility scheme for tyres. We have to look South — I know that the Member would love to see how such a scheme is rolled out in the Republic of Ireland. As I said in answer to Mr Wilson's initial question, this is a very complex issue, and I thought that he, as a former Minister of the Environment, would have had some appreciation of that complexity. Clearly, however, he does not, and that indicates to me that, when he was Minister, he did not grasp the issue and take control of it. I could probably continue the discussion with him outside.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Again, this is a subject of which Mr Wilson never tires. My Department is working very hard to bring forward new measures to tackle the scourge of used tyres being illegally disposed of. Mr Wilson is a former Minister of the Environment, and I know that he recognises the complexity of this area of work and the complications in trying to grasp the issue and deal with it in a conclusive manner. I can, however, assure him that we are working closely with tyre manufacturers to discuss the best way forward. <BR /> <BR />We are also working closely with councils, which is timely in that we are close to bonfire season when many tyres that are illegally and wrongly disposed of end up causing huge environmental damage as well as being a huge antisocial scourge, which tortures communities across the North.”
“That is a job for the Health and Safety Executive, in the same way that, if the DOE gives planning permission for a house, it cannot be chasing round doing building control inspections. Other agencies and bodies are charged with that work, and it is important that my Department works with them to ensure that they are doing that so that we can give some peace of mind and security to those who have these perfectly understandable concerns.”
“I thank the Member for that question. Again, in response to an earlier question on the Committee's report on wind energy, I briefly referred to the incident at Screggagh earlier this year or late last year when the wind turbine fell during an unprecedented event here in the North. The fact that that could happen, and the potential impact of such an occurrence should it happen in close proximity to houses, sent shock waves not just through the local community but through the community at large across the North and beyond. <BR /> <BR />When I answered questions about that in the House, I explained that, although my Department retains authority over planning matters, it is not the relevant authority to run checks on the safety of these structures when they are up.”
“I referred to many of those concerns in response to Mr Milne's earlier question. I also referred to the fact that the Member's constituency is one area that is particularly well versed in these objections and concerns. <BR /> <BR />As for safety fears, I presume that the Member is referring to the potential health impacts of wind turbines and wind farms. I remind the Member that the Public Health Agency (PHA) is a consultee on these applications. When objections are made, they must be addressed and answered by my Department, which it does in consultation with agencies such as the PHA. My Department works with those agencies to allay residents' concerns and fears — hopefully, in most instances — and, if a genuine concern is shared by the relevant statutory agency or authority, that can be addressed by the applicant.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Buchanan for that question. I am extremely aware of many concerns and objections that residents across the North and beyond have about wind energy applications.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Clarke for his question. However, I am not in a position to give any guarantee on something of which I do not know the content. One thing that I can give a guarantee on is that I will give careful consideration to all factors, as I do with all decisions that I make, before making a decision.”
“This application, like any application, will be subject to the most stringent examination and scrutiny by planning officials and Northern Ireland Environment Agency officials before it even reaches my desk. It will then be up to me to make a decision.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Clarke for that question. He is right to establish the connection between things such as recycling figures and waste infrastructure or lack of infrastructure here in the North to deal with our waste. The Member will be aware that an article 31 planning application is being assessed by my officials. I have not received a report from my officials on that application to date nor have I had any indication of when that report might arrive. <BR /> <BR />There is massive public interest in the application, as the Member will be well aware, with in the region of 3,500 objections. Assessments of an application are based not on the quantity of objections but on their quality.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, and I thank Mr Ó hOisín for that question. As part of the criteria for the natural environment fund that we set to judge the performance of the ENGOs — it is worth remembering that we are here as the Department of the Environment not to ensure the survival of voluntary and community groups but to ensure the survival, protection and promotion of our environment, and all those groups happen to be providing services that do just that — we looked at their ability to draw match funding from many other sources, including Europe. That was weighed up when we were assessing their applications and, ultimately, allocating funding to them. It is important, particularly in these straitened times, that we look externally and maximise the drawdown of money from other sources.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mr Wells for that question, although why he would want to be a member of any group that would have him as a member, I do not know. <BR /> <BR />I agree that this has been a very ad hoc arrangement. The Member should recall that he was a Minister at the time, when we had to decide on a one-year Budget. They were extremely ad hoc circumstances all round. I have said on record publicly again and again and will do so again today that I was not particularly pleased with the hand that was dealt to me in that Budget. However, I think that I have played that hand as well as I could. While the stakes are high for all those groups, I took the gamble and got a big win for them.”
“I can assure him, if he has not seen it on the TV or heard it on the radio — I have not heard any particular criticism of the process that I engaged in, perhaps apart from the regret that it was a wee bit late; we would love to have been in a position to carry this out prior to the Budget and this financial year — that the vast, vast majority of groups, in the region of 99%, recognise the efforts that I have made in this regard.”
“I thank the Member for his question and his begrudging recognition of my intervention — albeit belated — in this regard and efforts to ensure that the number of groups and the amount that groups lose in funding was kept to a minimum. <BR /> <BR />As regards who is no longer eligible for funding or who has not been successful with the NEF, I do not have that detail to hand. However, I will certainly provide it to the Member.”
“I have also allocated £0·3 million for the 2014-15 challenge fund from the carrier bag levy that will provide money to support community groups and schools in delivering environmental projects. ENGOs, provided that they are not the lead applicant, are encouraged to partner with eligible organisations in project delivery. The competition closed at noon on 26 June for community groups and will close at noon on 25 September for schools.”
“Furthermore, my Department set up a workshop on 23 April to discuss how best to allocate £1·25 million of residual funding from carrier bag levy income to support key environmental priorities and help in safeguarding some of our most valuable sites and landscapes, protecting our priority species and encouraging access to the countryside. <BR /> <BR />Following the workshop, which was attended by 22 environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs), the natural environment fund (NEF) opened for applications on 1 May with a closing date of 20 May. All applicants to the NEF were informed of the outcome of their grant application on 18 June in line with the established timetable. Twenty-one NGOs and landscape management bodies were awarded funding.”
“In the past, I have highlighted the very serious implications of the budget settlement for my Department, particularly emphasising the implications for a wide range of grant and other programmes aimed at supporting key environmental programmes. I further stressed that these cuts would have immediate and significant implications, including the loss of jobs, for a range of voluntary bodies across the North. Since then, I have focused on doing whatever I can within the imposition of this extremely difficult budget to ease the impact of these cuts, primarily through the use of carrier bag levy receipts. Therefore, I agreed initial allocations to environmental organisations totalling just under £1·5 million to help to deliver a wide range of environmental outcomes.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Mrs Overend for that question. It is a valid question and a valid concern. It would seem ridiculous that one council would zone housing right up to the border of its area, which would then be immediately adjacent to land zoned as open space or where development was prohibited by the neighbouring council. That is why it is important that there is a central oversight retained by DOE. We will do everything that we can to encourage liaison between councils as well. That is very important, and it would not just be on a council-by-council basis but, naturally, for councils in border areas to liaise with their neighbouring councils in the Republic of Ireland as well.”
“While we have had only four meetings to date, I would like to think that it is taking shape and will be a useful tool in the future.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank Ms Lo, and I hope that she has recovered from her bitter experience in neighbourhood renewal. She is correct in identifying that I am consulting Executive colleagues on the development of a community planning engagement protocol. The responses that I have received to date on that have been entirely positive. In addition, Members should be aware that I have established the partnership panel for Northern Ireland, membership of which comprises a representative of each of the 11 new councils, Executive Ministers and representatives of NILGA. That partnership panel provides a mechanism for discussion between Executive Ministers and local government elected members on strategic policy matters at a political level.”
“I think of neighbourhood renewal and maybe the reluctance of some Departments and agencies to buy into that, which, in my opinion, has not allowed it to realise its full potential.”
“Whilst their responses indicated support for the community planning process, most Ministers do not believe that it is necessary or productive, I might add, for their Department to be named as a statutory community planning partner, preferring, where appropriate, that the arm's-length bodies — many of which are named as statutory community planning partners — participate in the partnership. <BR /> <BR />It is vital that we have as many Departments and or through their arm's-length bodies buying into the community planning process as possible, if it is to be the success that we need it to be and anticipate that it can be. We have to look at other processes that are still running, however, with mixed measures of successes.”
“I thank the Member for his question. In my view, there is a very close linkage between community planning and the local development plan, which, in many respects, will be the spatial expression of that community plan. The consultation responses on the draft Local Government (Community Planning Partners) Order indicated a desire on behalf of local government and others to see Departments named as statutory partners on their community planning partnerships. I therefore sought the views of my Executive colleagues on including the 12 Departments as statutory community planning partners.”
“Obviously, DOE will retain oversight and responsibility for policy. However, I am determined that, within that framework, flexibility exists for councils not to do just as they choose willy-nilly but so that, within reason, they can work within that framework to deliver for their communities in a sustainable fashion on the ground.”