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 2 of 18.
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. I certainly understand the logic behind her arguments. I remain at a place where I think that there is a difference. I understand that, when we are drafting legislation, there has to be a level of definition when it comes to some crimes. However, I still do not accept the argument that a child of that age will realise that attempted murder is wrong but will have a different view of grievous bodily harm with intent. <BR /> <BR />I will move on. I did not want to speak for that long, but I will make a couple of other points. It is right and proper that, as we look at this issue — I will come on to victims in a minute — we look at the perpetrators of those crimes. We are talking about very serious crimes.”
“I will, Minister. <BR /> <BR />— that are so serious and heinous that they are very similar to some of those that are listed in the exceptions.”
“The other thing about what we are talking about is that it is so arbitrary. I accept that children develop at different times and have different levels of understanding. That brings me back to the initial question: why are we then making exceptions? I get the point that some children might get it that stealing a mobile phone from a shop, for example, is different from attempted murder, but we are talking about crimes —”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. I agree with her that brains develop in different ways. I have some sympathy for other arguments that I have heard on the issue that look at Gillick competency.”
“<BR /> <BR />To be honest, if the Member is making the case that it is about reason, Gillick competency or, as she just said, children fully understanding their actions, the very fact that she has put in five exceptions leaves her in muddy water. To be clear, I would not support that case. I will let the Member back in after the Member from the Alliance Party. Either children understand that difference at 13 or they do not. No child will say, "Do you know what? I know that manslaughter is bad, so I will not do it, but attacking someone with a claw hammer is OK". That does not make any sense. It is certainly not my understanding of childhood development. I hope that I have answered the Member's point. <BR /> <BR />The Member has waited patiently.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention and am happy to address it. She said that young people may or may not fully understand the implications of their actions. I was not going to make this point, but I will now. The Member's comment takes me back to the fact that amendments with exceptions were tabled. When I think about that, I wonder whether the signatories to those amendments are making a case that children of a certain age understand that some crimes are wrong and some are not. For example, are they saying that a child of 13 will understand that — these are the Member's exceptions — murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration are wrong but that, somehow, the same child of 13 will have a different understanding of attempted rape or grievous bodily harm?”
“I will, but I will take an intervention from the Member across the way.”
“They will want the offence to be treated as a prosecutable crime. They are as entitled to that as another family who will say, "Actually, we want restorative justice for the perpetrator of this crime". My difficulty with the amendment is that it removes the possibility of the family whom I am talking about having recourse to justice. It would remove the vehicle that would allow them to have that.”
“I will take an intervention from the Member on the opposite Benches in a moment. I would like to answer the Member for North Antrim first. I absolutely accept that. The Member very kindly took an intervention from me last night, or certainly there was some chat about this in the Chamber. I completely accept that not all victims will have the same outlook, and certainly not in the context that she is or I am sharing. Victims will have different views and opinions about what they see as justice, as recompense or, for example, as rehabilitation and about how they see society being made safe. I accept that from the Member. <BR /> <BR />I say to her, however, that there will also be families who, in the situation that I have just described, will want what they might call justice.”
“With respect, I will take an intervention from the Member for North Antrim first.”
“I gave the Member an example last night. I fully accept that the age range of the case in Hampshire is above what we are talking about, and I was simply giving an example. Those crimes do happen, however. My reasoning around this is that, if I was either that 10-year-old girl or her parent, in the example that I just gave, there would be no recourse to justice. <BR /> <BR />The Member made a reasonable point. When we look at violence against women and girls, there absolutely needs to be better education, but we also need to address what happens when a young girl is subjected to something that is completely heinous.”
“I thank the Member for her question. We do have age-appropriate RSE in our schools. It is part of a review that the Education Minister is conducting to make RSE provision in our schools even better. I can speak only for myself and my family. We have two boys in our family, and, as we bring them up, we are, of course, teaching them to respect women and their young female school friends. I would hope that every father and mother in Northern Ireland is doing that. We are dealing with misogyny in our society. We have the ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) strategy, which we talk about a lot. <BR /> <BR />I will stay on that theme for a second. We have the EVAWG strategy, but, in the example that I have just provided to the House, that offence would no longer be prosecuted. I accept that those occurrences are very rare.”
“In doing some research around the issue, one example that I considered was that, under the amendment, if a group of 13-year-old boys were to sexually assault, grope or fondle a 10-year-old girl, that would no longer be a prosecutable crime. <BR /> <BR />I agree with the comments of my colleague the Education Minister, who spoke as a Back-Bencher this evening. I fully accept that some of those who tabled the amendment believe that it is the right thing to do and that it will improve our criminal justice system and support young people. I accept that they are sincere in those beliefs. I believe that the amendment will not do that, and I hope that they will accept the sincerity with which I make that argument. <BR /> <BR />We have talked at some length about the perpetrators of those crimes.”
“I thank the Member for North Antrim, who tabled one of the amendments, for answering that. Although I am still unsure why those crimes were picked and why others did not make the list, I certainly accept her answer. <BR /> <BR />When we look at what is and is not on the list and how the exceptions apply, we see that the offences that a 13-year-old could no longer commit, because they would no longer be viewed as crimes, include very serious crimes. I have picked just three: grievous bodily harm with intent, attempted rape and arson endangering life. Were the Assembly to pass that amendment, a 13-year-old who perpetrated those crimes could not be prosecuted for them. <BR /> <BR />I considered it more. I thought about the circumstances and the impact that the amendment would have.”
“I am quite happy to take an intervention from any of those who tabled the amendment. For example, one of the crimes listed is murder, and a second is attempted murder. Why do we have rape on that list but not attempted rape? I remain confused about why the crimes on the list were picked.”
“One such thing was why we were looking at these specific amendments and what was their backstory. I have worked with the Bill Office on a number of occasions and found its staff to be excellent at what they do. However, any MLA who has been here a while or worked in the Assembly will know that an MLA who takes an amendment to the Bill Office usually has some level of what we might call "policy intent", in that they want something to be done. They hand it over to the Bill Office, and, accordingly, it drafts an amendment that is in line with that policy intent. The Bill Office, however, can draft only on the basis of what it is given. I remain confused by the five exceptions on that list. It was not even clear in the rather fractious debate last night why those five offences had been picked.”
“There should be more support in the early stages so that they do not find themselves in the situation of committing a crime at the age of 12 or 13. <BR /> <BR />It is clear from the debate that the amendments that we are discussing, which are supported by Alliance, Sinn Féin and the SDLP, want to raise the MACR to 14, with five exceptions, which have been discussed throughout the debate. I should say that I will not speak for 20 minutes or half an hour; my contribution will probably be about five minutes, and I want to try to be fairly concise. Those exceptions are murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration. <BR /> <BR />In the early stages of my contribution, I want to pick up on the debate that we had late last night, which was not very orderly, but a lot of those things were discussed.”
“I will speak on amendment Nos 79 and 82. There has been much talk about some of the backgrounds that we have been considering. For declaration purposes, I was a youth worker, like the Member for North Antrim, for about 20 years. I have also written a detailed report on adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and I am more than familiar with ACEs and trauma-informed care. I am also more than aware that children with six or more ACEs are more likely to get involved with our criminal justice system. <BR /> <BR />As I approach the debate, my view on the matter, which, to be fair, has been referred to by a number of parties in the course of the debate, is that we should be intervening earlier and quicker, before those children actually perpetrate a crime.”
“Some of the crimes that we are considering this evening are appalling, so victims should be in the middle of this, and many of those victims — perhaps not all — will want some level of justice for crimes such as that that I just mentioned. Does the Member agree?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member opposite described the UNCRC and some of the amendments being debated as progressive. The Member may be aware of the recent case in Hampshire where two girls aged 14 and 15 were raped in separate incidents by two 14-year-old boys and another boy who was 13. They videoed the rapes. They were not even given custodial sentences. In fact, that was referred to the Attorney General. We have talked about perpetrators and the conditions that perpetrators sometimes find themselves in, but, at the heart of this, there are still victims, and those victims require some level of justice.”
“I listened to those Members, most of whom are not here now because they have all gone home, and I have not understood from their arguments where that list has come from or why, for example, GBH with intent, which is another heinous crime, has somehow not made the list. Does the Member agree that the list looks arbitrary at best and poorly designed at worst?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He was talking about amendment Nos 79 and 82 and the disparity. I have listened carefully to the arguments that others have made in the Chamber, while, clearly, not agreeing with them. The proposed new clause lists the offences of murder, manslaughter, rape and assault by penetration. Just to highlight the slightly arbitrary nature of that list of heinous crimes, I point out that attempted rape is not on that list. Murder, attempted murder and rape are on the list, but attempted rape is not. Therefore, a victim could be kidnapped, perhaps even bound, going through that trauma before being rescued at some point by a third party, yet that would not be chargeable under the amendments.”
“I accept her point, but, equally, will she accept my point that victims of the most heinous crimes that we will discuss today and their families will see restorative justice or other interventions that we have discussed as in no way fit for the crime that that young person has committed? Some are dreadful crimes. I am happy to accept the fact that lots of groups are not homogenous, but will the Member accept that there will be people watching this who will want a different form of justice, such as some level of protective custody for the perpetrator because of the nature of what that person has done to one of their loved ones?”
“I thank the Member again for giving way and the Minister of Justice for clarifying that. I am happy to accept the Member's characterisation of non-homogeneous victim groups. I agree with her, and we have seen that in Northern Ireland throughout the Troubles — not dealing with MACR but in other circumstances — where victims have had very different approaches to the perpetrators.”
“What happens if a 12-year-old or a 13-year-old commits a serious crime, and the victims' family wants to see justice and the young person going to a secure facility where they will not harm other people?”
“I thank the Member for giving way, and I apologise to her for being a bit late to the Chamber and missing the start of her speech. I agree with her. She mentioned trauma-informed care, therapeutic support and family interventions. Those are all incredibly effective ways of dealing with some children who may end up in our justice system. I agree with the Member that those interventions need to be put in place before the age of 10. They need to be put in place earlier and faster. On the basis of the amendments that we are discussing, I struggle with what will happen to the victims of serious crimes, who may not be classed as victims any more. She mentioned that 305 10-to-12 year-olds had become known to the justice system this year. We are talking about incredibly serious crimes where there are victims of those crimes.”
“They strengthen this place's response to drug-driving, support the work of the PSNI and promote consistency in enforcement. The amendments are not only the right thing to do but would provide a powerful and fitting legacy for Jaidyn Rice: safer roads in Northern Ireland. Surely everyone in the Chamber should aspire to that. I therefore urge all Members of the House to support the amendments and send a clear and unequivocal message that drug-driving has no place on the roads in Northern Ireland.”
“I believe that colleagues are keen for me to keep going. I am only kidding. I will drop a couple of pages. <BR /> <BR />No legislation can eliminate all risk on our roads, and no amendment can guarantee that no collision will ever happen again. We know that, but, where we have the opportunity to strengthen enforcement, provide deterrence and enhance public safety through proportionate measures, surely we should do that. We can do nothing retrospectively. We cannot bring people back who have already been lost to RTAs in dreadful circumstances in Northern Ireland, but we can plan for the future and try to make that future safer and more secure. For those reasons, amendment Nos 74 and 75 are sensible, balanced and justified.”
“The powers that have been proposed are not arbitrary; they are very limited in scope, subject to authorisation requirements and focused on a very specific public safety objective. The inconvenience caused to law-abiding motorists will be very minimal. In contrast to that, the potential for preventing collisions, reducing injuries and saving lives is incredibly significant. In weighing up those competing considerations, the balance falls firmly in favour of action. <BR /> <BR />Mr Deputy Speaker, I am conscious that it is approaching 8.00 pm. Do you want me to wind up my remarks?”
“<BR /> <BR />I recognise that some Members may have concerns about civil liberties and personal freedom, and I am more than aware of those concerns because I take them very seriously. In this case, the vast majority of our citizens who drive do not take substantial quantities of drugs before getting behind the wheel of a car and have nothing to fear from such a test. However, such concerns should not be dismissed lightly. When the House considers granting additional powers to law enforcement, it is right that we properly examine those powers before they are granted to ensure that they are justified, proportionate, and accompanied by safeguards. The proposals in the amendments meet that test.”
“<BR /> <BR />None of us doubts that, if we were involved in a collision — I was involved in one a number of years ago — the police would get you to blow into a little device to check that you had not been drinking. The amendment will create a similar response for drug-driving. It will reduce the possibility of variation between cases and will reinforce the message that road safety legislation will be applied consistently across Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Taken together, amendments Nos 74 and 75 create a coherent and balanced package of measures. One amendment provides the tools for enforcement, and the other ensures that the tools will be used effectively when the circumstances require them. Together, they strengthen our collective response, which is cross-party, to the problem of drug-driving in Northern Ireland.”
“It alters the current framework that governs preliminary tests by creating a duty on constables to administer such tests in the specified circumstances that I highlighted earlier, rather than leaving the matter solely to officer discretion at the scene of an RTA. It is an important step because consistent enforcement is a key component of public confidence. The public expect road traffic laws to be applied consistently and fairly. They expect that, where circumstances indicate that testing is appropriate, action will be taken at that point. Whilst police discretion remains an important principle in many other areas of enforcement, there are circumstances where a clear statutory expectation can help with consistency and remove uncertainty.”
“However, the true value of the powers lies not only in detection but in deterrence. People who currently think that it is OK to take drugs, get behind the wheel of a car and drive may have to reflect on that and change their attitude. <BR /> <BR />Enforcement changes behaviour, and visible enforcement can change behaviour even more. The existence of authorised drug-testing checkpoints will send out a crystal clear message to everyone in Northern Ireland that drug-driving will be actively targeted and individuals who choose to engage in such behaviour may face serious consequences. Every collision that is prevented is a family spared grief, a victim spared injury and a community spared loss. <BR /> <BR />I will turn briefly to amendment No 75, which complements the previous amendment and strengthens it a little further.”
“<BR /> <BR />One of the strongest arguments in favour of amendment No 74 is that it addresses a very practical challenge faced by police officers. Drug impairment, as has been acknowledged in the Chamber, not least by the Justice Minister, is more difficult to identify than alcohol impairment. While alcohol can be detected through observable signs, drug impairment can be much harder to recognise. Providing officers with the ability to conduct preliminary saliva tests at authorised checkpoints gives them an effective means of identifying drivers who may be under the influence of drugs. It will also enhance PSNI capabilities and increase the likelihood that dangerous drivers will be detected before they cause harm. It will be too late in the case of Jaidyn and Enda, but not too late for others.”
“It will create a framework whereby checkpoints can be established only with the written authorisation of a PSNI officer of at least inspector rank. It will also require that the locations, dates and operating times of those checkpoints be clearly specified, and it provides that testing may only be conducted by uniformed officers at that authorised checkpoint. Those are very important safeguards. As we know, legislation that is created in the Chamber must have checks and balances. I believe that the amendment is targeted and proportionate. It is not an unrestricted power. It is a carefully constructed power designed to deal with a very specific public safety concern while maintaining accountability and public confidence.”
“<BR /> <BR />The reality is — Members have noted this — that a motor vehicle in the hands of an impaired driver becomes, quite frankly, a lethal weapon. In fact, a car is a lethal weapon even when driven properly. That is why we must be so careful on our roads. When someone chooses to drive while affected by drugs, they not only take a risk with their own safety but put passengers, pedestrians, cyclists and other motor users in danger. Every family and person driving on our roads has a right to expect that those around them are fit to drive and are capable of doing so. That is why I support amendment No 74. The amendment will provide the PSNI with the power to conduct drug testing at authorised checkpoints using saliva-testing devices.”
“Thirty years ago, that was not the case. Thirty years ago, people might have taken a drink, or several drinks, and got into a car and driven home, but very few do that now. Why is that? It is mainly because of a change in attitude to say that drink-driving is wrong. Some of us in the Chamber are old enough to remember the very hard-hitting TV adverts that we were exposed to during that time. They played their part, and I believe that they were successful. Today, police officers, road safety organisations and victims' groups all recognise that drug-driving poses a clear and legitimate threat to public safety. Whether the drugs involved are illegal substances, controlled drugs or strong medication taken in a manner that impairs a person's ability to drive, the consequences, as have been reflected by the Assembly, are, frankly, devastating.”
“I thank the Justice Minister for her comments on the assessment of effects, in answer to a question from one of my colleagues on the individuals concerned who could be tested at the roadside for those substances. In answer to those comments, she will know as well as I do that that is for Committee Stage, and, at Further Consideration Stage, those can be worked out. I believe that, with good purpose and congenial working, we can undoubtedly find a way through that. <BR /> <BR />For decades, governments and legislators across the UK have worked hard to change public attitudes to drink-driving, for example. That has been referred to on a couple of occasions even during this debate. Education and enforcement legislation made it increasingly clear that driving under the influence of alcohol is wholly unacceptable.”
“As has been said numerous times this evening, the change could be called Jaidyn's law in memory of that very much loved and well remembered teenager from Bangor. I sincerely hope that we are successful in that regard. <BR /> <BR />At the centre of the debate on amendment Nos 74 and 75 is a straightforward but important question: are we doing enough to prevent those who have taken drugs and are therefore impaired by them from getting behind the wheel of a car and putting the lives of other people at risk? I believe that we absolutely can do more. I also believe that the amendments offer practical steps to address that challenge.”
“What a lovely thing to say as an epitaph. I will pause briefly to recognise the amazing efforts of Jaidyn's mother, Elaine, her grandmother, Judith, and the wider family, who have, rightly, been relentless in keeping the memory of Jaidyn alive. Since Jaidyn's death, Stephen and I have attended several meetings with family members, at which Elaine and Judith have made very clear their view that a change in the law is needed. I thank the Justice Minister for taking one of those meetings and the Infrastructure Minister for taking another. <BR /> <BR />Elaine and Judith are calling on the Assembly to make drug testing automatic in the case of collisions resulting in death or life-changing injury.”
“I pay tribute to my constituency colleague Stephen Dunne and to the Chair of the Committee for Justice, Paul Frew, who is wandering around the Chamber chatting to Members — I hope that Hansard got that one — who tabled the amendments. <BR /> <BR />As Members are more than acutely aware, Jaidyn Rice — my constituency colleagues Stephen and Connie referenced her, as did Julie — was just 16 years old when she was knocked down and killed on Bangor ring road in July of last year. Jaidyn was an army cadet with a very bright future. She was involved in youth and community work with the DICE Futures project in North Down, and I know that members of the North Down Community Network still feel her loss acutely. <BR /> <BR />My colleague read a quote that described Jaidyn; it is interesting that I have written down exactly the same quote.”
“Therefore, once the police have apprehended the offenders, they should have, in the first instance, enhanced powers to seize the e-scooters, which is exactly what amendment No 90 will allow them to do. The message will soon get through to inconsiderate users of such vehicles that they will lose their e-scooter, e-bike or e-scrambler; apparently, such things can be expensive. I reflect on the fact that amendment No 90 has cross-party support, and, therefore, I ask all Members to support it. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 74 and 75 are sensible, proportionate and necessary measures to strengthen road safety across Northern Ireland.”
“Like many others in the Chamber, I have had contact, through my constituency office, with members of the public who have been, frankly — I will use the word because it was used in one of the many emails that I got — "tortured" by the users of such devices. People asked me to raise the matter in the Assembly, although I doubt that many of those people will be watching Assembly TV at 7.45 pm on a Tuesday. I am not sure whether 'Coronation Street' is still on; other TV programmes are available. <BR /> <BR />The police have to be empowered to take action when such vehicles are used in an antisocial way. That cannot simply be left to the police as an operational matter when they have not been given appropriate powers to act.”
“Offenders know that, at times, the police cannot really pursue them due to the risk of personal injury or injury to the users themselves.”
“I have listened intently to some really great speeches during this important debate, and it has certainly been of a high quality. <BR /> <BR />I will speak briefly on my support for amendment No 90 and then turn to amendment Nos 74 and 75. I imagine that Members and, most importantly, the users of e-scooters, which are obviously the subject of amendment No 90, are patently aware of the challenges that face police officers when trying to apprehend those users, as chases sometimes evolve that can endanger the safety of the police and the individuals they are trying to apprehend. There are significant limitations in the actions that the PSNI can undertake to pursue the individuals who are on those vehicles.”
“I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I know that she is a parent. Does she agree that there is no call that any parent fears more than one from the police to say that their son or daughter had been killed, which is exactly what the families of Jaidyn and Enda faced, and that that is one more reason that we have to have this law in Northern Ireland?”
“I thank the Member for taking the intervention. Does he agree that one of the challenges, which I hope to reflect on later this evening, is that the police, in trying to apprehend people using the scooters, which, by their very nature, are quite mobile, have to make a call on whether they want to pursue, in most cases, the young folk on the scooters? By its very nature, that can have consequences not only for the police officers but for the young person who is fleeing on the e-scooter. Does the Member recognise that problem in his constituency? It is certainly current in mine.”
“Taking on board the comments made by the Member for Mid Ulster, will the Chair of the Justice Committee agree that the police have an incredibly difficult and challenging job in Northern Ireland, which perhaps reflects the uniqueness of the role?”
“I thank Paul for taking an intervention. In light of the comments from the Member for Mid Ulster, which highlighted the nature and uniqueness of what we are talking about today, will the Chair of the Justice Committee agree that, in many ways, the police force is unique? When there is danger, they do not run from it; they run towards it. The Police Service’s role in Northern Ireland is to keep us all safe — keeping me safe, keeping my family safe, keeping the Members of this place safe — that is their role, and they work in unique circumstances. The police see some of the most hideous and heinous things that, I hope, members of the Assembly do not have to see because that is their job, and that is what they sign up for.”
“If the Bill addresses the vast majority of the work, will that not be beneficial as it will save the vast majority of women from that type of abuse?”