Peter Martin
North Down · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Minister, the Northern Ireland Audit Office report is very critical of your Department on the topic of flood risk. You have just read out some interventions that your Department has made. The report's most substantial criticism is that your Department cannot show that its activities to build flood risk defences:”
“It also seeks to rebalance a level of government control by removing certain powers that the Department currently holds, including direction and control over appointments to board positions. That supports the case for reclassification by ONS.”
“<BR /> <BR />Members were keen to hear directly from young people, who will probably be most affected by GDL, so we consulted the Youth Assembly. The Committee was impressed by the thoughtful and constructive nature of that engagement.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am confident that the Committee will be able to engage positively and work collaboratively with the Department to ensure that the Bill reflects the current areas where reform is required.”
“<BR /> <BR />Having considered all the evidence, the Committee ultimately concluded that it would not be appropriate to proceed until it was fully satisfied that the driving instructor sector believed that the proposed date of 1 October 2026, which the Minister referenced, was realistic and achievable.”
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, it is important to consider the proposal in the context of the wider legislative package that is required to bring GDL into operation, and the Minister referenced that. <BR /> <BR />At the outset, I make it clear that the Committee supports the principle of GDL.”
The complete record
Every one of 893 lines we hold for Peter Martin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 18.
“Minister, you have consented to the granting of a number of property disposals. It would be helpful if you can provide some further information on their location, the types of disposals that you have approved and whether they are cost-neutral.”
“What specific changes have you made to demonstrate that you are not just throwing good money after bad?”
“Minister, the Northern Ireland Audit Office report is very critical of your Department on the topic of flood risk. You have just read out some interventions that your Department has made. The report's most substantial criticism is that your Department cannot show that its activities to build flood risk defences:”
“As I have mentioned, every loss is a world-changing event for a family, especially if that loss is of a young person. I am content with the legislation before us.”
“This place needs to do everything in its power to ensure that we decrease the number of road deaths and injuries in Northern Ireland. In 2025, there were 56 deaths on our roads. If GDL assists in reducing that number next year, we would, of course, support it. <BR /> <BR />We have been told at Committee that the Department hopes that insurance premiums will come down as a result of GDL. Obviously, all Members will be concerned about that, especially when it comes to our young drivers. We will want to keep an eye on that, in particular, to see whether GDL has the impact that has been suggested and insurance premiums come down. However, for me, the key is road safety. We will all have met a family who has lost a loved one on the roads.”
“It certainly challenged the Department and the Minister, where necessary; sought additional evidence where it saw fit; ensured that those most affected had the opportunity to be heard; and secured the assurances that it needed before supporting any implementation. That is how Assembly scrutiny should work: not against the Department but with the Department. <BR /> <BR />With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will make a few brief points as DUP infrastructure lead. As I mentioned when I spoke in my role as Committee Chair, I accept that the Minister's policy intent is road safety. Every death on our roads is one too many. In her opening speech, the Minister mentioned a death that had occurred in her constituency.”
“<BR /> <BR />Having considered all the evidence, the Committee ultimately concluded that it would not be appropriate to proceed until it was fully satisfied that the driving instructor sector believed that the proposed date of 1 October 2026, which the Minister referenced, was realistic and achievable. The Committee therefore sought further views from the DIA and the NIAIC, and, following additional engagement with the sector, the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) and other stakeholders, assurances were finally received, after which the Committee was content to support the proposals. <BR /> <BR />All members of the Committee support the policy intent of GDL and share the hope that it will have create safer roads. At the same time, the Committee has fulfilled its scrutiny responsibilities.”
“<BR /> <BR />Members were keen to hear directly from young people, who will probably be most affected by GDL, so we consulted the Youth Assembly. The Committee was impressed by the thoughtful and constructive nature of that engagement. The Youth Assembly, while supportive of having safer roads, raised some questions about affordability, insurance costs, enforcement, fairness, rural impacts and the practical realities facing young drivers. It also highlighted concerns about the lack of a recent consultation and the need for training and education that reflects real-world experiences. <BR /> <BR />Although the Committee's formal call for views generated only one response, members were contacted by a range of interested individuals and stakeholders, most of whom are our constituents. We therefore got, at first hand, the views of many.”
“The Driving Instructors Association and the Northern Ireland Approved Instructors Council raised concerns about communication on the issue, about consultation and about the preparedness of the sector for GDL. They pointed to limited engagement from the Department with instructors, uncertainty around operational arrangements and a lack of clarity on how implementation will work in practice. The Committee heard from the Association of British Insurers, which was broadly supportive of GDL on the basis of the objective of improving road safety. It cautioned against making assumptions that GDL alone would lead to lower insurance premiums, however, and provided some clarity on concerns that had been raised about instructor liability.”
“A lot was asked of the Committee at the same time as taking forward Executive legislation, but I think that I reflect all Committee members' views when I say that, sometimes, we were meant to feel responsible for delays in an area that has sat in this place for 10 years and has been in development for even longer. <BR /> <BR />For that reason, the Committee was determined to hear directly from those who would be most affected by the proposals. I posted about GDL on my Facebook page, and it got, I think, 275,000 views, including views from Canada and Australia. Everyone wanted to be involved. Evidence from driving instructors and that sector was crucial, however. All Committee members accepted that.”
“Despite that, the Committee was advised that any delay in progressing the legislation could delay the implementation of GDL, potentially placing lives at risk. <BR /> <BR />While members took those points seriously, we also felt that legitimate parliamentary scrutiny should not be presented as an obstacle to delivery. The Committee has a statutory responsibility to test evidence, hear from stakeholders and satisfy itself that legislation is workable, proportionate and capable of being implemented effectively. That scrutiny role must be respected and properly factored into departmental planning. As Committee Chair, I felt that the process moved at a pace that I, at times, found awkward.”
“Members recognised the Department's desire to introduce an important road safety measure, and I recognise the Minister's personal desire to treat road safety as a priority. However, the legislation underpinning GDL is 10 years old, and the policy development and consultation that informed it is older still.”
“On 25 March, the Committee took oral evidence from the Association of British Insurers (ABI), the Driving Instructors Association (DIA), the Northern Ireland Approved Instructor Council (NIAIC) and the Youth Assembly. The Committee subsequently received further correspondence from the Department and undertook some additional scrutiny before seeking further assurances from key stakeholders. <BR /> <BR />Throughout that process, the Committee's principal concern was not the policy objective of GDL, which it supports, but the manner in which the implementation was being handled. The Committee had to assure itself not only that the implementation was proceeding according to the time frame but that proper scrutiny was being applied to it.”
“I will not dwell on it, but the Committee would have liked to hear from the Minister in this place first before hearing about the proposals in the media. I hope that there has been learning on all parts regarding that. The Statutory Committees play a central and crucial scrutiny role in the Assembly and, therefore, should be afforded the respect of being informed about major policy announcements and not learn of them through the media. <BR /> <BR />Notwithstanding those concerns, the Committee approached its scrutiny of the policies constructively. Departmental officials briefed the Committee on GDL on 4 February 2026. The Committee initially considered the proposals and proposed SRs on 25 February and launched a public call for views. The consultation closed on 10 March.”
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, it is important to consider the proposal in the context of the wider legislative package that is required to bring GDL into operation, and the Minister referenced that. <BR /> <BR />At the outset, I make it clear that the Committee supports the principle of GDL. As the Minister referenced in her speech, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 established the legislative framework for GDL, and its objective was to reduce deaths and serious injuries among newly qualified drivers; an objective that, I am sure, every Member supports. <BR /> <BR />I have to note that the Committee became aware of the proposals for the regulations through 'Good Morning Ulster' in January 2026, and all the Committee members were disappointed by that.”
“I will make some comments as the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee as we consider the delegated legislation before us for GDL. I associate myself and the Committee with the Minister's comments about the death of the young girl, Kourtney McCormick, who was killed very recently. The Minister referenced the accident in her opening comments, and it illustrates that we should invest our time and efforts in anything that we can do to improve road safety in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Today's motion concerns one of the four legislative instruments required to implement GDL, namely the Motor Vehicles (Specified Restrictions) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2026, which is subject to the draft affirmative procedure.”
“I thank the Minister for taking an intervention. Minister, I am glad that you talked about DAERA. I am not particularly aware of the context of the situation in Warrenpoint, but the explanatory and financial memorandum makes it pretty clear under its explanation of clause 4 that it is DAERA in the case of fishery harbours and the Department for Infrastructure for any other harbour. In the context of our discussion of environmental concerns, have you had any conversations with the AERA Minister about the matter itself or the Bill that relate to some of the concerns that Members have raised in today's debate?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. In his answer to my colleague, he mentioned the GRO and that there have been, I believe, 1,800 applications over the past 24 hours. Does he have the confidence and assurance that GRO will be able to process that volume of applications? If he has any concerns, will he put in place additional staff to service the demand?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. I asked the question because of a constituent who came to me. It was clear that the young lady did not want her biological father to be on her marriage licence; she wanted her stepfather to be on it because that was the relationship that she had and enjoyed. <BR /> <BR />I take it from your answer that it would require legislative rather than policy change in GRO.”
“I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that, when looking at how to bring FDI or other investment into Northern Ireland, infrastructure is critical? Our ports, which we are talking about today, are part of that infrastructure, which delivers jobs and investment. Does the Member agree that, if we get the Bill right and get it through, it will be a key enabler and driver for getting more jobs and investment into Northern Ireland?”
“I want to be clear: we will do our best to ensure that the Bill gets priority — it is Executive legislation — and receives the scrutiny that it deserves from the Infrastructure Committee. If it passes Second Stage, I will welcome it coming to that Committee, and we will start scrutinising it, hopefully, in September. My party supports the Bill at Second Stage.”
“We are not content with average and, sometimes, even poor legislation, and we have seen that other Bills that have come before the Assembly can have negative unintended consequences.”
“and that it will deliver the conditions that will ensure greater economic development for Northern Ireland. I encourage the Department and the Minister to work collaboratively with the Committee. Certainly, I would welcome more engagement with the Department and Minister as the Committee, perhaps, flags up ways in which the Bill could be improved or enhanced. I would like to see faster and deeper problem-solving. The Committee cannot do that in isolation; we have to do it concurrently with the Department. <BR /> <BR />Second Stage is about policy intent, and the drivers behind the Bill are sound. It should unlock investment and jobs for Northern Ireland. That is certainly what my party wants to see for our wee country.”
“One of the key issues in it is unlocking that CDEL expenditure so that the harbour will be able to develop significantly and no longer be hamstrung by its impact on DFI capital budgets. <BR /> <BR />I want to be clear that my DUP Committee colleagues and I take our responsibility incredibly seriously, as, I know, do members from other parties on the Committee. We will take evidence on the Bill to ensure — I will use a Ronseal reference — that it:”
“The amount of shipping that comes in, the amount of foodstuffs that arrive in Belfast and the sheer level of trade are absolutely incredible. We absolutely rely on Belfast harbour to provide us with so much of what we eat and, perhaps, even buy daily. <BR /> <BR />When I attended that launch, I was particularly impressed by the drive and ambition of the master plan. As I listened to the Minister, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, it was clear to me that so much of what the harbour seeks to do is concurrent with the draft legislation. Hopefully, through the Bill, we will see the unlocking of that ambition and potential that the Minister and I have mentioned.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am confident that the Committee will be able to engage positively and work collaboratively with the Department to ensure that the Bill reflects the current areas where reform is required. I hope that, through the Committee's scrutiny, it will be keen to provide helpful suggestions or enhancements to ensure that the Bill reflects and delivers greater long-term benefits for Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Right, I will make some comments as DUP infrastructure lead. Certainly, my party welcomes the Bill. I was at the launch of the Belfast harbour master plan. The Minister was there along with the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I also met the chief executive of Belfast harbour. I have to say that I had never been in the offices previously. I was stunned by the size of Belfast harbour. It is absolutely massive.”
“<BR /> <BR />Understandably, through its provisions, the Bill seeks to unlock a number of benefits that will provide greater investment capacity, enable greater flexibility and enhance the contribution of our ports to long-term economic growth and some decarbonisation goals. From the evidence that the Committee has received to date, we note the strong case for reform. When we undertake scrutiny, however, the Committee will undoubtedly wish to examine the impact of departmental oversight whilst ensuring that there is transparency and accountability and to examine relationships and how the interests of ports are balanced with those of the people who live in the local community. That is the job of the Infrastructure Committee.”
“It also seeks to rebalance a level of government control by removing certain powers that the Department currently holds, including direction and control over appointments to board positions. That supports the case for reclassification by ONS. Additionally, the Bill provides for enhanced commercial powers to allow ports to operate on a more competitive footing with ports in the rest of the UK and Ireland and introduces powers for harbour directions to enable harbour authorities to issue enforceable directions to vessels for maritime safety purposes. Lastly, it includes reforms for harbour orders that aim to streamline processes to afford ports greater flexibility in initiating and progressing changes. <BR /> <BR />I will now speak as — no, not yet. I see my red lines here. I am not quite there yet. I know that people are getting excited.”
“During previous oral evidence sessions, the Committee noted that, currently, any borrowing by trust ports, regardless of the source of funds, is counted against the Department for Infrastructure's capital departmental expenditure limit (CDEL). As a consequence, as the Minister probably knows only too well, that requires budget cover by the Department that, in essence, means that it competes with other capital projects that are delivered through either the Department or its arm's-length bodies (ALBs). <BR /> <BR />The Bill will retain the trust port model, so there will be no changes to ownership or status and the relevant ports will remain independent statutory bodies operating for the benefit of stakeholders with profits reinvested locally.”
“The Committee also noted the Department's publication of its recent consultation, which closed on 10 March 2025. At its meeting on 10 September 2025, the Committee received oral evidence from departmental officials on the consultation's key findings and on whether the case for reform remains. During my time chairing the Committee, there have been a number of discussions about the need for reform. I therefore warmly welcome the Bill's introduction and the opportunities that the legislation should unlock if it passes Second Stage today. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister said, the central tenet of the Bill is to reclassify the ONS statistics to allow trust ports greater financial autonomy by removing the current link between borrowing and departmental budgets.”
“As the Minister has indicated, the Bill seeks to modernise the legislative governance framework for Northern Ireland's trust ports to enable them to operate more efficiently and to strengthen their contribution to our important regional economy. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received oral evidence from the Department and from the Belfast Harbour Commissioners in order to greater understand the underlying issues that impact on the operations of our harbours and to examine the Department's plans to introduce reforms. In the course of that evidence, the Committee noted that, historically, the issue has been on the Department's radar for quite a while: all the way back to 2006. In 2014, it was flagged in the Department's public consultation.”
“I will continue on that theme. What do you say, Minister, to those who argue that safeguarding continued and was protected in the inspection regime during action short of strike?”
“I thank the First Minister for her answer. I will ask her one of the edited questions that stumped the Children's Commissioner. Given that we are struggling to deal with violence against women and girls, what message does it send out that her party supports a position of not prosecuting 13-year-old boys for attempted rape?”
“I have written to the Children's Commissioner three times in as many weeks regarding his public position on raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) to 16. I asked Mr Quinn questions such as, if prosecution is excluded because the male perpetrator is under 16 years old, how he proposes to recognise the heinous crime of rape on female victims who are children. His first reply directed me to an external website to explain his policy position. In his second, he replied with three sentences. Is it acceptable for the Children's Commissioner to refuse to answer an MLA's questions?”
“I thank the Finance Minister for giving way. In the first instance, if he is taking Mr O'Toole and Mr Carroll to meet the Chancellor, I wonder whether any tickets will be available for that meeting. <BR /> <BR />The Minister mentioned efficiency savings. Is he aware of a mechanism that is in place to drive forward those efficiencies in Departments? I ask that question honestly, and I am not sure what the answer is. He raised the important point about how it is not just about funding but about efficiencies. Does he have mechanisms in place to look at our Departments and drive forward efficiencies?”
“I have outlined my arguments for that. I accept that there are Members who disagree. I am happy to continue the conversation offline and to do so respectfully. As I considered the issue — I considered it long and hard — I could not get past the fact that the victims of some crimes will, in some of the circumstances that we have debated, have no access to justice. Those crimes are being committed, albeit in low numbers. A Member said — I wrote it down — that we needed a victim-centred approach: I completely concur. That is why I have made my arguments and why I will not support the amendments.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. I am aware of some of the MACRs around Europe. I looked up Switzerland, which is one of the most liberal and progressive countries in Europe. It has the same MACR as ours: 10. <BR /> <BR />The Member raised prevention, early intervention and ACEs. I can certainly provide her with my report, which is now a good eight years old. I made a raft of policy suggestions around those things before Northern Ireland was even talking about trauma-informed care and ACEs, when they were still within the ambit of the Scottish Government, who started talking about that in 2007. I am more than happy to provide her with the report and the policy recommendations that I made a long time ago. <BR /> <BR />I will stop there; I have spoken for more than long enough. I am content with the current position: a MACR of 10.”
“I thank the Member, and it might concern her that I am about to agree with her. That is what we need. I have stood in the Chamber and called for earlier, faster and more effective intervention. We know the cohorts that need that. I would love to see the Assembly move towards that, and, to be fair, I believe that the Justice Department has become trauma-informed. Is the Justice Minister going to nod at me? Yes, she is. OK. <BR /> <BR />We can identify those youngsters, and the Member makes a good point, especially about boys. Sixty per cent of boys who have fathers in prison are infinitely more likely to offend, so there are identifiable cohorts that we could put additional resources into and target with more support and interventions. We do not have to move MACR to do that. <BR /> <BR />Did anyone else want me to give way?”
“What I say to the Member's other point is that pushing MACR to 14 is not the solution. The solution — I made the point at the start — is better and earlier intervention so that kids do not make those mistakes. If you look at the research — I am more than happy to provide the Member with some research around this — you see that, if you intervene earlier when children have multiple ACEs, they end up —. This is about hardwired brain development. Some Members have made the case — I heard one Member make it earlier — that a brain needs to be specially wired even to be able to commit some crimes, and that happens over time. Therefore, what we do is intervene earlier, faster and younger so that children, even when well below what MACR is now, get help, support and interventions so that they do not end up in those situations in the first place.”
“I will in a second. <BR /> <BR />If we change the law, what I have just read out could happen in real life — it absolutely could — and would not just be a theoretical example.”
“I am not getting into the POC, because that is not what we are here to debate. I stand by my convictions and my signing the POC. If I read out that set of circumstances to my constituents, or if she took that example to her constituents —. I accept that there are not massive numbers of these things, but the law has to understand that such examples exist. We are not talking about hypotheticals here.”
“They may get restorative justice, but my son or daughter is in the Ulster Hospital, and they have not committed a crime. I want the Members who sponsored that amendment to stand up — I am happy to give any one of them the Floor — and explain what they would say to the parents of that child in the Ulster Hospital when the policeman has explained to them that no crime has been committed and the perpetrators cannot be prosecuted. I do not have an answer to that, but I am more than happy to sit down if one of the proposers of the amendment wants to stand up and explain what they would do if they were the policeman at the door, and how they would explain to the parents what had happened and why those 13-year-old boys had committed no crime.”
“The more I that thought about it, I thought about what my approach, as a father of three children, would be if one of my children were subjected to grievous bodily harm by a group of 13-year-old boys. As a father, I would struggle if a police officer came to my door and told me that one of my sons or my daughter had been subjected to a really violent attack and were in hospital, possibly fighting for their life, but that no prosecutable crime had been committed, because the assailants were 13. My son or daughter is in the Ulster Hospital, perhaps fighting for their life, and I have a policeman at my door telling me that no crime has been committed and that the young boys or girls responsible will be free. They may have some level of support, which I am not going to demean — there was a lot of that last night.”
“I have listened very carefully to other arguments. We have talked a lot about human rights, progressiveness and a rights-based approach. In the middle of all of this, we need to centre ourselves on the victims of very serious crimes. The perpetrators should be in a secure facility, such as Woodlands. I do not know how you would start to explain to the parents of a young girl or a young boy who has been subjected to one of the crimes that is not on the excepted list that, a highly traumatic and extremely damaging event, there is no recourse for them; that no crime had actually been committed; and that, because the young person is 12 or 13, they can't commit a crime.”
“When we look at this matter, we have to protect society and make sure that that young person does not recommit the crime because they are free on our streets.”
“As I listen to some of the speeches in the Chamber, I nearly think that some Members are saying that, when one of these crimes happens, everyone is a victim: the person who commits the crime and the person against whom the crime is committed. That cannot be the case. Let us go back to the original premise. We are talking about a child of 13, who could have been found to have committed a crime of grievous bodily harm, which is one of the most serious crimes on the statute book. If the age was raised, they would not be placed in a secure facility, even though that secure facility would do all that it could to support them. At present, at least they would be in that secure facility in the first place.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention, and I agree with her. We do not want to traumatise those young people any more than their background already has. However, I will make this point to her. As she well knows, Woodlands holds a very small number of young people — about 40 to 48 — and it is never full. However, the young people who are in Woodlands have committed some very serious crimes, some of which are very violent crimes. As such, whilst they are assured of getting the support that I mentioned earlier, they are also held in a secure facility. That is the right place for them, because they could be a danger to not only themselves but society. That is why we have that facility. <BR /> <BR />We have talked about the victims.”
“If a young person commits a serious crime, that is where they go.”
“That term has been used a lot in the debate. People beyond the Chamber may not understand the nuances of what we are talking about in here. When an 11-year-old or a 12-year-old commits a very serious offence — the number of such cases is incredibly small — they are not sent to Maghaberry or another prison. I will defer to the Minister of Justice if I am wrong, but my understanding is that, in a situation in which a serious crime has been committed, the young person is most likely to end up in the Woodlands facility in my constituency. That facility — I looked it up — offers secure accommodation, education and training, healthcare and mental health support, recreation and sports facilities, and programmes aimed at reducing reoffending and helping young people to return to the community.”
“I was very glad that my colleague Mr Givan stated clearly that some of the perpetrators of those crimes come from incredibly challenging backgrounds. I listened to the contribution from the Member for North Belfast while I was upstairs. I apologise for not being down here. We know that those from care-experienced backgrounds are much more likely to have an encounter with the justice system. When they commit those crimes, they need rehabilitation because, at some point, we want them to come out the other side of that justice system as reasonable young people who can integrate back into society. They will need support, including education, to integrate into society, but they will need that in a secure setting. <BR /> <BR />That brings me to another point. We talk a lot about criminalising those young people.”