The Business Committee has agreed to allow two hours for each of today’s debates, the Member proposing each motion having 15 minutes to propose, with 15 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have a maximum of 10 minutes.

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the ongoing tragedy of deaths and serious accidents on our roads and calls on an incoming Executive to introduce a new rigorous Driver Testing framework and a Road Safety and Education programme, with the emphasis on groups most likely to be involved in road traffic accidents, reflecting international best practice, and including co-operation between all Road Safety agencies, North and South, in carrying out a safety audit of the road network and the development of a National Road Safety Campaign.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Éirím le labhairt ar son an rúin, agus tá mé ag lorg tacaíochta dó ó achan pháirtí agus ó achan Chomhalta sa Teach seo.

I propose the motion on behalf of Sinn Féin, and in doing so I seek the support of all Members and all parties. Road deaths have no boundary of geography, class or creed, and it is unnecessary to offer any explanation to anyone here of the impact on a family of losing a loved one to a road traffic accident. Neither do I wish to reduce the motion to a list of statistics, however revealing they may be, because every Member here is familiar with them to one degree or another.

In October 2006, in the Long Gallery, Ursula Quinn provided a personal and poignant testimony to the enduring effect that a road death has on a family. That event had all-party support, and resulted in a pledge to support the efforts of the “Driving Kills” group. From personal experience, we can all acknowledge that the tragedy and grief of many families is compounded by the realisation that the accident and resultant death could have been prevented. Other families and groups who have had experience of those tragedies join us today in the Public Gallery.

The rationale behind the motion is to put a stop to the complacent attitude that road deaths are an unavoidable consequence of road use. They are not; road deaths can be avoided, and it is our responsibility to do all that we can to end that complacency in the first instance, and to seek co-ordinated, properly resourced programmes to prevent unnecessary fatalities. It is worth noting that the World Health Organization has enshrined the concept that road deaths and injuries are not inevitable consequences of increased road use.

The motion is not intended to offer or prescribe a definitive programme by which road deaths can be reduced. There are many different factors, views and initiatives, all of which can play a vital role in tackling the problem, and all important and worthy of support. The motion is designed to make the issue of reducing road deaths and injuries a programme priority for the incoming Executive, and to ensure that that Executive provide the direction, emphasis, policy and resources to achieve that aim.

The motion offers a number of key areas that Sinn Féin believes can impact on the frequency of road accidents, so that a reduction in deaths and injuries can be made. These include a more rigorous testing framework, with greater emphasis on road safety education programmes that continue after the driving test. This must be aimed at the groups that are more likely to be involved in road accidents.

A safety audit of the roads network should be carried out on an island-wide basis. That can be assisted by the development of a properly resourced national safety campaign that has the potential to become the body to hold the relevant Departments, North and South, to account.

Great work is already in place in Ireland, and further afield, highlighting the correlation between speed, alcohol and the incidence of accidents. We have to look to the international experience and their programmes and initiatives, which are beneficial in reducing death and injury, and bring them into operation here. I have no doubt that other Members will bring to the debate other programmes and experiences — and I welcome that and look forward to hearing them.

Members have to work in a co-ordinated and collective manner to ensure that all of this becomes a priority programme of work for the incoming Executive. This motion, supported by the Assembly, will provide the necessary dynamic to ensure that the incoming Executive properly address the reduction of deaths and injuries on the roads.

I propose the motion on behalf of Sinn Féin and ask for Members’ support on the issue. I apologise that I will have to leave the debate to attend the Subgroup on Policing and Justice.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after “introduce” and insert:

“a wide ranging strategy involving all relevant agencies, including measures reflecting international best practice, to tackle the problem; with particular attention paid to those most likely to be involved in road traffic accidents.”

The Democratic Unionist Party has always given priority to the issue of road safety. In the Environment Committee, the former Chairman, Dr McCrea, and I pursued a strong line on road safety. It was the work of that Committee that led to the Department of the Environ-ment (DOE) introducing more road safety officers to schools.

The Committee also highlighted the issue of driving while on drugs, which was not being taken seriously by anybody at the time. The facts presented to the Committee were that over 20% of people involved in fatal road incidents had drugs in their bloodstream. Some 4% of that 20% had taken legally prescribed drugs and around 20% illegal drugs — of which over 12% was cannabis. It is nonsense to say that cannabis does not have many side effects. People are dying on the roads on a weekly basis because of the use of cannabis and because they have taken a car out after taking cannabis.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Wells] in the Chair)

The Committee also did a rigorous report on school transport. I regret that we did not have an Assembly to follow through on the issues raised in that report. Following the report, Members have had all the excuses and prevarication that one might expect from direct rule Ministers. They have said that there is no money to reduce the number of children per school bus seat from three to two, for example; that there is no money available to put seat belts into buses or to resolve the issue of standing in buses. That may be an argument on finance. However, there is enough money in the Department to have the high hazard signs fitted on buses, to put on flashing lights and to take many of the other steps proposed in that report. I do not think that it is too badly off to do that or to take many of the steps proposed in the report that do not carry such a huge financial burden as others.

In the South of Ireland, five young schoolgirls were killed on a bus, and a more recent incident took place in London. We cannot take it for granted that incidents like those will not happen in Northern Ireland. Everybody will be wringing their hands and asking why it has happened, and the excuse will be that we did not have the money to do it.

I have particular concerns about the speed limits in Northern Ireland. They need to be revised, on the advice of those who have relevant experience. I understand, from people involved with road traffic accidents and who have a fair degree of expertise in making assessments about them, that current speed limits are not fit for purpose. They are not relevant. For example, there are places where the speed limit is too high and others where it is too low. One finds a 30-miles-per-hour speed limit outside many schools, where there is great danger, with young children going about and a lot of parked cars, yet people can legitimately drive there at speeds of up to 30 miles per hour. Again, motorways were designed in the 1960s. Cars at that time were the Ford Anglia, the Hillman Imp and, for the well-to-do, the Ford Corsair. They certainly did not have the adaptive breaking system, side-impact bars and all the equipment that modern cars have. In many instances, the 70-miles-per-hour speed limit is too slow for the motorway. It does nothing for road safety to have such a speed limit. In other places, the speed limit is too high, and that should also be addressed. My party therefore has many major concerns about road safety.

I support the road safety advertising campaigns. I have met with those behind them. We discussed whether such advertising campaigns should be run on a national basis, and whether GB advertising campaigns should be used in Northern Ireland. They are very expensive to make, and the cost runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds. However, it was demonstrated that Northern Ireland has particular issues with regard to road safety. It has its own problems and intricacies. In conjunction with marketing experts, the Department was able to identify them, and the decision was taken to choose a more expensive, Northern Ireland based, advertising campaign. That was a correct decision; and that is the reason that the amendment is worded as it is.

Road safety is a Northern Ireland issue, with problems particular to here, and it should be dealt with on a Northern Ireland basis. What happens in other jurisdictions is for others to deal with. There is potential for a degree of co-operation on some aspects, but advertising campaigns and other road safety measures should be on a Northern Ireland basis. It would be impossible to organise these on the all-Ireland basis suggested by Sinn Féin because a completely different system operates in the Republic, with different speed limits. The Republic’s road safety problem is greater than that of Northern Ireland, and I wish the Government of the Irish Republic well in reducing the number of deaths that take place there. I welcome the European aspect that is being delivered, whereby those who break the law in one jurisdiction cannot drive in another. That, however, is a European, as opposed to an all-Ireland, aspect. Northern Ireland has its own particular road safety issues. The Northern Ireland Assembly has a responsibility to address the issues that prevail here and to concentrate on its own affairs.

Does the Member agree that it would be helpful if car manufacturers worked alongside other agencies to look at ways of addressing the problem of speeding? That would be particularly helpful in those areas where young people live to speed and then die as a result of speeding. Manufacturers should be involved in trying to reduce speeding.

Yes, absolutely. The training of young people in particular is very important, and the current driving test is a nonsense. If anyone carried out a three-point turn in any normal road circumstance, as is the case in the current driving test, he or she is likely to cause an accident because of the length of time that the manoeuvre would take; the same could be said for reversing around corners.

In order to test their real ability, people taking the driving test need to be allowed to drive on dual carriageways, motorways and main roads where it is possible to drive up to 60 miles per hour. The current driving test is not an accurate test of people’s ability to drive in normal road circumstances. They merely go through the motions and come out driving nothing like they do in the driving test. The test needs to be more practical; the Department must deliver a test that is more akin to real driving conditions. Those are not just my words — they are also the words of the examiners, who say that the driving test is no longer fit for purpose.

On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I want to support today’s amendment. We are very concerned about road safety in Northern Ireland, and we lend all the support that is humanly possible to improve road safety. Educating our young people on road safety is vital. So often it is the child who can say to the driver of the car: “Dad, you are driving too fast, slow down”.

We appreciate the work that the Fire and Rescue Service does in relation to accidents on our roads, highways and byways. We also thank the medical staff of our hospitals, who have to try and repair those broken bodies, and also the PSNI, which is always at our beck and call when an accident occurs on our roads.

We could do more to improve road safety. While we in the Assembly seem to be powerless at the moment, we call on the Department for Regional Development (DRD) and the DOE to be proactive in that role. When driving along many of our roads, many of the signs are barely visible because of bad weather conditions. They are either filthy, obliterated or you just cannot see them.

While in other areas you see signs on poles by the roadside, in parts of my county, Armagh, instructions are marked on the road in very loud and bold markings in a gold and red paint. I find that very attractive and more impressive than the many poles on roadsides, because you drive past them not noticing them because they are so numerous.

We must move further and ask DRD to look seriously at engaging in modern technology. We have experience of some of the valuable work that has been done in our universities — for example, Queen’s University has an excellent department for investigating and carrying out research — and with satellite navigation, and I hope that the Department will take the need to engage in modern technology on board.

Furthermore, car manufacturers should be instructed, or, in fact, ordered, to co-operate, and amend the manufacturing of the cars. For example, if someone is driving too fast, car manufacturers could have a signal appear on the dashboard to alert the driver to the fact that he or she is speeding. Or if there is a danger ahead, a mechanism fitted to the car could be triggered by a pole at the roadside as the car passes it, which would alert the driver to the accident ahead, or to the fact that the driver is over the speed limit.

We must be proactive and advance with the modern day and age. No doubt, there will be other Members who will speak today and give statistics on the figures relating to deaths, casualties and injuries. I and my party convey sympathy to all those who have suffered bereavement, especially over the last year and in the period just after Christmas, when the home is not the same due to an unfortunate road accident or an accident caused by a drunk driver.

Therefore bitterness and resentment are felt in many homes in Northern Ireland because of what can happen as a result of bad driving and poor road safety standards. The UUP wants to improve those standards, and Northern Ireland can lead the way by using modern technology to alert drivers and by introducing better road safety education to all schools.

The requirement to sit a written examination before taking the driving test was introduced about 15 years ago, but it now seems out of date. People still speed and do not take care on the roads. The Department for Regional Development also has a responsibility to straighten those bad corners at which many accidents happen. One accident or one death is one too many, and the Department should take emergency action to address such problem areas on the roads, because people must be protected. The UUP supports the amendment.

As a former teacher of road safety and moderator of examinations in that subject, this is one of the most serious topics that the Assembly could debate. In my role as teacher — and since — I have mourned the deaths of pupils and past pupils, and I understand something of the grief of parents and families. Perhaps that is why I am disappointed that an amendment has been tabled and that all parties will not vote collectively on the motion. I understood that, following the St Andrews Agreement, all parties supported North/South bodies, increased co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána, the harmonising of penalty points and joint advertising on television. Deaths on the road know no political boundary. Members who are in the House and who are from the North have lost loved ones on roads in the South, and others who are from the South may have lost loved ones in the North. Those people will not understand the need for division.

Road deaths and serious injury in road accidents have haunted us since the Locomotives Act 1865 — known as the “red flag” Act — was passed. That restricted the speed of horseless carriages to 4 mph in the countryside and, believe it or not, to 2 mph in towns. The Act also required someone to walk in front of the carriage carrying a red flag, as the Act’s nickname implies. The Act was not repealed until 1896 following serious lobbying by the Royal Automobile Club (RAC), which subsequently organised the London to Brighton run in celebration at being allowed to speed.

Seven years after the “red flag” Act was passed, another road traffic Act made it an offence to be drunk in charge of a horse and cart or a horseless carriage. Today, unfortunately, speeding and drinking and driving are still two of the main reasons why so many people continue to lose their lives.

In modern times, road fatalities peaked in the mid-1970s, when 375 people in the North lost their lives. In 2006, the figure dropped from 150 to 125, which is good news. However, it provides no cause for celebration, especially for those families who are grieving for the loss of their loved ones. The Republic also reported its lowest number of road deaths for 40 years, but that figure fell far short of targets. A total of 500 people lost their lives on this island — that is not a cause for division.

In Britain, the number of fatalities last year was over 3,100, and, despite a proliferation of speed cameras and fixed cameras that affect over one million drivers each year, that figure has not fallen significantly. The Northern Ireland Assembly doubled the number of road traffic education officers from nine to 18. Presumably, they have had an impact in the schools and have contributed to road safety education. However, little has been heard of them in the public arena.

Looking beyond these islands, it is useful to note that France has had considerable success in reducing its road fatalities.

It is claimed that much of that success can be attributed to the French President, Jacques Chirac, who made road safety an election issue. The result is that road fatalities in France have been halved in three years. Scandinavian countries are also better than we are at dealing with road safety, and there is much to be learnt from them.

It is often pointed out that during the Troubles more people lost their lives on the roads than through violence. As Members know, enormous efforts were made by people from all over the world to solve our political problems and to identify the causes of those deaths. Enormous sums of money have been spent on security — perhaps billions of pounds. By contrast, much less has been done to bring an end to the slaughter on the roads, and precious little has been done to create an overarching body to deal with road safety issues.

I acknowledge the work of the Road Safety Council of Northern Ireland, which is unique to these parts. Believe it or not, the total resources of that body are a full-time chief executive, currently acting up, and one part-time member of staff. The new organisation in the Republic, the Road Safety Authority, has 309 full-time staff and the power to bring together all Government Departments with responsibility for road safety. No one can tell me that there is not a lot that we can learn from that. Is it not time that we had a similar body, with powers to knock heads together to make road safety the issue that it is in those countries where the death toll is considerably lower?

Over the Christmas period, there was a high-profile campaign about drinking and driving, yet a huge number of motorists were caught over the legal limit — some of them by a considerable margin. Unfort-unately, most of the publicity went to the police officers who, I regret to say, figured in the overall list. Little has been said about the others who were on the roads with excess alcohol in their systems. How many were caught the morning after, when they thought they were safe to drive? Can drinking and driving be viewed purely in isolation, when Members know that there is a serious problem relating to alcohol generally? That issue must be examined.

Reference has been made to the driving test, which, apart from the introduction of the theory section, has changed little over the years. New motorists have no experience of the horror of road accidents, and these are not simulated in any training programme. On the contrary, the test is no more than a meander through the suburbs, on routes that most candidates know like the backs of their hands. No part of the test is conducted on the motorways — or after nightfall, when the greatest number of young people lose their lives. After the test is passed, there is no follow-up to measure the new driver’s skills, attitude and progressive experience. There is the advanced driving test, but few take it. That does not apply to any other skills programme, where there is much less risk of causing death or of being killed. That must change. There must be a progressive programme to ensure that young people are nurtured through those difficult years and that they remain alive.

Let us hope that this debate lays a foundation stone upon which we can build a new approach to an issue that affects so many families and worries so many parents sick as they lie awake at night until their sons and daughters return safely. Many here understand what that is about. When I was young, I certainly did not understand it, but as a parent I do.

Together, North and South, we can create a new partnership and harness our experience, knowledge, and grief to follow the example of others and have this island talked about not for the number of people who are killed day and daily, but for our success in addressing a scourge that is largely ignored by the motor manufacturers. Some of the advertisements for leading manufacturers on television are a disgrace. They encourage decent young people to become boy racers. Someone must take control of that.

The insurance companies have a role to play as well. Young people might be more encouraged if they were charged a reasonable premium when they began an insurance policy so that they had something to protect, rather than being charged exorbitant premiums which would have no effect in the case of an accident.

Breweries also have a role to play. If there were fewer happy hours and promotions, fewer young people might be goaded into doing the wrong thing. Many people — and I have named some of them — are making vast fortunes out of motoring and motor sport, but they contribute little to protecting those who end up in the morgues awaiting identification by distraught relatives.

The fatalities for 2007 have already begun, and, in fact, one of them was from my constituency. Let us hope that a new Assembly — which I expect at the end of March — will give top priority to making improved road safety essential. We can do it, and I hope that it can be achieved collectively with the co-operation of all parties.

This is a timely debate, because, unfortunately, fatalities on the roads are reaching unacceptable levels. Road safety should and must be the number one priority for everyone — young and old. The Alliance Party will support every effort to prevent road accidents. I support the motion and the amendment.

One life lost or one person injured on our roads is one too many. My heart and deepest sympathies go out to those people who have lost their lives, who have been left with terrible injuries as a result of a road traffic accident and who have been left behind to grieve the loss of a dear one. As public representatives, Members are all too aware of tragedies that have hit our constituencies, and of the untold misery and pain that comes with fatal accidents.

This Assembly should have the legislative power to introduce measures to combat the risks on our roads, and I say hurry on the day when we can help to prevent or at least reduce the senseless carnage on the roads.

I offer my sincere gratitude to the emergency services. They deserve the highest credit and thanks for their work. It is they who are first summoned when an accident takes place and who have to attend to the carnage. Regardless of training, one cannot be prepared for some of the horrific scenes that the emergency services face. Everyone has loved ones and family; it must be heartbreaking to have to go to a mangled vehicle and attend to the victims.

There is an ever-increasing volume of traffic on the roads; therefore road users who are in charge of what might be classed a lethal weapon must have their wits about them. There is no room for risk or distractions. The aim is to reach one’s destination safely and with respect for other road users, even if that means being slightly late for an appointment.

Many reasons have been given for the carnage on roads; we are told that the biggest culprit is alcohol. Once again, it seems that the UK legislation relating to this issue is 30 years out of date. The alcohol limit is 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood — approximately double the limit in most other European countries. There is, therefore, much room for improvement.

Speeding, particularly by younger drivers, is also a major factor in road crashes. The Alliance Party welcomes the imminent introduction of the draft Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, which will assist the Northern Ireland road safety strategy (NIRSS).

Last week, I met with representatives of the British Medical Association in Northern Ireland (BMA (NI)). They are concerned about road traffic fatalities and are calling on Government to take steps to cut down the number of road accidents.

As Edwin Poots mentioned, the Committee for the Environment recommended some simple changes to ensure safety on our school buses. These included the provision of a seat belt for each pupil, the suggestion that only one pupil be allowed in each seat and a range of other safety measures. That report is probably gathering dust on a shelf somewhere, and yet the carnage goes on. Yesterday evening, I read about a fatal bus crash across the water. If its passengers had been wearing seat belts, those deaths and injuries could have been prevented. We must think about that issue.

During the last Assembly mandate, I requested funding to improve the surfaces of a couple of the major roads on the Ards Peninsula in my constituency: the A20 from Newtownards to Portaferry and the A2 coast road from Newtownards to Portavogie. I also requested funding for other roads on the peninsula. However, rather than increased funding, the overall roads maintenance budget was reduced.

I would like Peter Robinson to resume his post — or another Member to be nominated — as Minister for Regional Development to take charge of local roads as quickly as possible. At least Mr Robinson introduced the second phase of the Comber bypass, for which we had campaigned for 30 years. The sooner a local Minister is in place, the sooner all our roads will be improved.

I understand that the current Minister with responsibility for road safety has cut the funding that the Road Safety Council of Northern Ireland allocates to local government road safety committees. My colleague Naomi Long wrote to the Minister to ask him to meet with the Belfast area road safety committee. Unfortunately, he refused because his diary was full.

The road safety committees run on a very low budget. They address the education of young people and young drivers, and promote advanced driver training to increase awareness. However, they are struggling to fund such simple things as paper for their school poster competitions. That is shameful: the Minister should be ashamed of himself.

The Republic of Ireland is considering using our road safety committees as a model to address its situation. However, for the want of a few hundred pounds, we are jeopardising them in Northern Ireland. Again, the Minister responsible must assess that situation.

Road safety means that proper investment should go into all our roads, not just the motorways. The A20 and the A2 to Portaferry and Portavogie, to which I referred, have had their fair share of fatal accidents. The most recent involved a young Glastry College student who lost his life just before Christmas. Like so many others, these roads were designed for donkeys and carts some years ago. They are certainly not up to what is required of them now.

Life is precious. All road users are at risk. The next Assembly must take the lead in implementing measures to stop road carnage.

I welcome this morning’s debate and commend those who tabled the motion. Road safety is an important issue. Indeed, it is a priority issue that a new Assembly must tackle in Northern Ireland.

Not a week goes by without headlines on the news — whether radio or television — bringing distressing scenes of families who have had the tragedy of losing a loved one visited upon them. We have seen that all too often in Northern Ireland, especially amongst our younger people.

This issue affects us all; it cuts right across the entire community, and we, as political representatives, must give it a higher priority. This debate is a welcome step in the right direction.

Last year, there were some 125 fatalities on the roads in Northern Ireland. While that marks a reduction in the number for the previous year, it is, nevertheless, still far too high. In particular, deaths among young people are a real cause for concern. A couple of years ago, four young men were killed in a road traffic accident in my constituency. They attended Lisburn Institute of Further and Higher Education, and I attended a special service that the institute held to commemorate those four young lives. I remember the impact that those deaths had on the young students in that college. They were absolutely devastated at the loss of their young friends — four lives cut short and needlessly lost. We must provide political leadership in this area and must urge those with statutory responsibility to introduce additional measures to tackle the problem.

Lisburn, in my constituency, does not have a particularly proud record when it comes to road traffic accidents. In 2005-06, we topped the league table in Northern Ireland for fatalities and serious injuries. In Lisburn, there were 94 road traffic accidents involving fatalities or serious injuries; closely following that was Fermanagh with 74; Ballymena with 63; Foyle with 59; and Dungannon and South Tyrone with 57.

Those statistics are frightening, and they also highlight the fact that many road traffic accidents occur in rural areas. Indeed, the statistics for Northern Ireland show that more deaths occur in rural areas than in urban areas, which is due in no small part to drivers travelling at excessive speed on country roads that were never built or designed for such speed.

Between 1994-98, males aged between 16 and 25 made up only 8% of Northern Ireland’s population, yet accounted for 21% of road traffic accidents involving death or serious injury. Some 19% of those accidents were attributed to excessive or inappropriate speed, and 12% to cases that involved drugs and alcohol. A staggering 50% of road traffic accidents involving fatalities or serous injuries are down to careless driving. Road safety advertisements and publicity campaigns often emphasise the dangers of alcohol, and that approach is welcome and commendable; we must discourage people from drink-driving. However, half of all road traffic accidents involving death or serious injury are down to careless driving, and we need to examine that issue carefully. It is partly a matter of education.

Earlier, Mr McCarthy welcomed the introduction of the draft Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, which is due to come into force shortly. The Order will bring Northern Ireland into line with other parts of the United Kingdom as regards enforcement on our roads. Some of the measures that are envisaged in that Order are to be welcomed. For example, I understand that, in future, courts will be able to offer retraining for drink-driving offenders in exchange for reduced punishment, and that the courses will be held at the attendant’s expense. That is not just a matter of ensuring that the punishment fits the crime, but of ensuring that those who have a history of drink-driving are given the help that they need to deal with any alcohol problem and to address their driving habits.

Will the Member agree that if a person continually offends and is caught speeding, after having taken drink or drugs, the penalty should be much stiffer in order to send out the message that, although help is available through the courts and various agencies, continual bad behaviour on the roads will result in stiff penalties for abusers of the system?

I thank my hon Friend for her intervention. I agree entirely. Although on the one hand investment must be made in education and training for young people in particular, at the same time penalties must be stiffer for continual offending. I am sure that all colleagues have encountered cases of serial offenders in their own areas — people who regularly appear in court for traffic offences. I am sure that we have all met families who have lost loved ones on the roads, particularly through joyriding, or “death driving” as it is more aptly known. The penalties for joyriding are not severe enough. When a driver regularly reoffends, the courts ought to consider removing that person’s driving licence for life when it is clear that he or she will not be able to kick the habit of careless driving or drink-driving.

The Order will also introduce variable fixed penalties for speeding to match the severity of the offence and graduated fixed penalties for vehicle-roadworthiness offences. It will introduce new penalty points for failure to wear a seatbelt, using a mobile phone while driving, not being in proper control of the vehicle and contravention of temporary speed limits — all of which are known to contribute to careless driving. The police will also be given the power to arrest any individual who does not stop for a police officer and the power to undertake drug-impairment tests.

Steps are also being taken to bring our licensing system into line with that of the rest of Europe. Through my work in the Transport Select Committee in the House of Commons, I am aware that moves are also being made to regularise Northern Ireland’s vehicle and driver licensing system to make it compatible with the system in Great Britain, so that there will no longer be the nonsense that drivers with Northern Ireland driving licences — which are not recognised by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea — and who have incurred a penalty in Great Britain, cannot simply pay a fine, but must appear in court.

I started by saying that we, as politicians, have a responsibility to do something about the problem. The Northern Ireland road safety strategy is welcome. The Association of British Insurers recently published proposals to reduce the number of deaths on the roads, especially among young drivers. There are good recommendations in that document, which I commend to the Assembly.

Finally, I want to draw Members’ attention to a presentation that will be given by the Road Safety Council in the Long Gallery on 29 January 2007. I hope that it will be a platform for the formation of an all-party group on road safety that will bring all parties together for a common cause, to tackle the issues and to demonstrate to the general public that their political leaders are serious about dealing with the problem in Northern Ireland. I hope that all parties will support the formation of such an all-party group in the Assembly.

I support the amendment. Northern Ireland lost 125 people on its roads last year, each representing a tragic loss to families, friends and communities across the Province. Each death is one too many. Northern Ireland’s aim in 2007 is to continue to work together with, and take advice from, its counterparts in other areas of the United Kingdom in order to find additional ways to reduce the number of tragedies on its roads.

The annual cost of road accidents and consequent injuries to the Northern Ireland economy is £400 million — a huge cost to the taxpayer that must be reduced. The Northern Ireland road safety strategy, launched in 2002, has already had a significant impact in reducing the number of deaths and injuries on the roads. Any plans than can improve the awareness and concentration levels of road users are welcome in the effort to promote safety.

Government Departments and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are working well together to promote an integrated approach to road safety. With support from the community, they continue to endeavour to reduce the number of deaths on the roads. That is yet another area where any normal, democratically elected person or party should have no hesitation in supporting the Police Service of Northern Ireland in their efforts to promote road safety.

As a region of the UK, we are part of the national challenge to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents. An enhanced education programme is a necessary part of any strategy to reduce the number of road accidents. The Driving Standards Agency has designed and implemented an additional voluntary training service for new drivers, Pass Plus, with the help of insurers and the driving instruction industry, to give new drivers advanced training in safe driving. That programme covers potential dangers such as driving in town, in all weathers, at night, on rural roads, dual carriageways and motorways. No such scheme has been implemented by the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency in Northern Ireland. A devolved Assembly or, in its absence, direct-rule Ministers, should consider such a scheme. We must grasp the nettle and show young people that we politicians feel very strongly about this matter and are going to do something about it.

Great Britain is introducing a new rigorous driving test framework, and moving towards a more demanding driving test. It is important to ensure that Northern Ireland is part of that debate and keeps pace with what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom. Education is the basis of any advanced driving programme, and that must include children at primary school. The driving test should be based on education provided at that early age. As Sam Gardiner said earlier, young people are the eyes and ears of the future, and they will alert drivers and parents if they feel that their lives are in danger. It becomes natural for them to think of safety in their lives, the more so when they become drivers.

I agree with Edwin Poots, who said that in some cases the speed limit is too high, and in other cases too low. That must be amended. Only through the successful operation of the Assembly and its Committees will we be able to change that. All of this hot air is useless until Sinn Féin becomes a democratic party and we can move forward without our hands being tied.

Some Members:

Hear, hear.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion, but I would like first to address the amendment. When I read the amendment this morning, I thought that it might be something to do with DUP or unionist sensitivity about language because the motion refers directly to North/South measures. However, having listened to Edwin Poots, I now believe that it is much more than that. Sadly, that reflects a rather blinkered view of this problem on the island of Ireland. There are many DUP and Ulster Unionist representatives from border constituencies, such as Maurice Morrow, one of the proposers of the amendment. He surely knows that the tragic phenomenon of road deaths is not confined to one side of the border, and a different approach — [Interruption.]

If the Member wants me to give way, I am happy to do so. He obviously does not; he has nothing to say.

It is not confined to one side of the border, with a different set of problems and a different approach needed on the other side. Anyone who lives in or represents a border area knows that many main roads run across the border and back again within two- and three-mile stretches and, therefore, what is needed is an approach recognising that fact.

It is no surprise that Co-operation and Working Together (CAWT), the agency that monitors such things, has produced statistics showing that there is a proportionately higher chance of road fatalities occurring in border areas North and South than on the rest of the island. There are a number of factors involved, but surely we cannot ignore the fact that the problem stretches across the island. We cannot ignore the fact that we have a land border and different jurisdictions. There needs to be a common approach between those jurisdictions to tackle the problem.

Another problem that I have with the amendment is that both Edwin Poots and Billy Armstrong derided the current driving test and argued that there were deficiencies in it. However, the amendment removes the call for a rigorous new driving test examination.

Before Christmas, I had an experience similar to that of to Jeffrey Donaldson: I was invited to speak at an event following the deaths of two men on the Dublin Road on the outskirts of Newry. It struck me that, like many other road traffic deaths, the accident involved two separate individuals — both of whom I knew; one was a taxi driver and the other was a young man from my constituency whose family I know — who were both killed in an accident involving a car that was being driven by young people. It would be inappropriate to go into the details of the accident, because some matters are still sub judice. However, the broad picture given by the report of that accident fits the general pattern of so many others — speed, road structure, unfit vehicles, and vehicles being driven without due diligence.

Other people have talked about speed and the abuse of drink and drugs while driving, and I will speak about those briefly. Education is a key factor. It has been well proven — and statistics show very clearly — that the people most likely to be involved in that type of activity are young men. That is not to demonise all young people; the majority of them, including young men, drive responsibly and with caution. Sadly, however, all the statistics show that young men are the most likely to be involved in car accidents, serious injuries and road fatalities while under the influence of drink or drugs, and that is where education must be targeted. While education programmes are being targeted at pupils in secondary and grammar schools, it is time to consider introducing such programmes in primary schools also.

Again, the matter is not confined to the Six Counties; it applies across the island. John Dallat referred to the new Road Safety Authority in the South; it seems to have had some success, and lessons can be learned. We are not living in a bubble, and those of us who represent border constituencies know that road fatalities are not confined to one side of the border or the other and are not due to different sets of reasons on one side of the border or the other. That must be taken into account in our approach.

Detection and appropriate punishment are also involved, and those are matters for agencies on both sides of the border. There are issues that need to be addressed. Jeffrey Donaldson referred to the licensing anomalies between here and Britain, but there are also anomalies in detection and punishment between here and the South.

Road structure is another factor playing a key part in road traffic accidents and fatalities, particularly in the border areas. It has been said that the majority of accidents and fatalities happen in rural areas, and it is no surprise that there is a link between that fact and the substandard structure of roads in rural areas — and the decreasing budgets for road structure in those areas, and in border areas particularly.

There are questions to be asked about our main roads too. When the Newry bypass was opened a number of years ago, people from all political parties, and those who lived along the bypass or used it, complained about the substandard lighting and the dangerous carriageway layout. It became the most dangerous stretch of road in the North of Ireland, if not on the whole island.

It took many years of lobbying before a simple set of street lights was erected at each junction of that bypass. I am thankful that since their recent installation, there have been no further fatalities. The roads agencies should not wait until 16 or 17 people have died on a stretch of road before reacting with such simple measures.

The new stretch of the A1 from Loughbrickland to Beech Hill has recently been completed at a cost of more than £20 million. Already, questions are being asked about safety measures on that stretch of road. Speed limits were introduced on the A1 at Dromore, and, eventually, an underpass was built. However, that brand new stretch of road has similar junctions and cross-cutting traffic to those that were on the Newry bypass. Must we wait until there have been 15 or 16 deaths on that stretch of road before the Roads Service starts to spend the money that is required to provide the necessary standard of roads on this part of the island?

Reasons for and remedies to the tragedies that we experience day and daily were proposed during the debate. All those proposals have merit. However, one matter that is certainly a factor in many of road deaths has not been addressed, namely, the driving of unfit vehicles and driving without insurance. Unscrupulous car dealers have, by and large, escaped responsibility for some of the fatalities on the roads. Those dealers sell so-called runaround cars for relatively small amounts to people whom they know not to have proper licences or insurance. Those vehicles are sold without a care or a thought in the world to the outcome. In the recent case to which I referred earlier, the car in which those young people were travelling had been bought only the previous day for a relatively small sum. Therefore those dealers cannot evade responsibility.

The solutions do not lie only in detection, rigorous driving tests, better roads and better standards of driving; we must also address social responsibility. People must take responsibility for their actions and businesses and for how those contribute to road tragedies. Those who knowingly sell vehicles to people who are not responsible enough to drive them bear a huge responsibility, and they should carefully examine their actions.

The motion is sufficiently comprehensive to address what the debate should cover. I hope that when this Assembly gets down to business at the end of March it will seriously tackle this issue. I commend the motion, and I regret that the amendment has brought narrow party politics and blinkered thinking into the debate. Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

Many Members have addressed the same point — the need for road safety to be addressed in a co-ordinated fashion if the tragedy and trauma that many families have experienced due to road deaths are to be reduced.

One of the most compelling requirements of an incoming Executive and Assembly is to establish a strategy, policies, and an implementation plan for a wide range of public safety measures that incorporate and encompass co-operation between Departments and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Such a strategy and policies would address safety on our roads and ensure that our neighbourhoods are places in which people can live, work and enjoy their recreational pursuits free from the onslaught of violence, assaults and criminality. Road safety is one component of that strategy that must be given a much higher priority. The motion, which my party supports, addresses the need for robust measures on road safety on the island of Ireland. It also addresses the need for promotional schemes to make road safety a number-one priority. Those measures are urgently required, and they must be implemented on a co-ordinated basis through the development of a road safety authority in the North that is comparable in size, resources and remit to its equivalent in the South of Ireland.

In April 2006, my colleague Mr Dallat and I met the chairman and chief executive of the Road Safety Authority in the Republic of Ireland. We were amazed by the authority’s work remit and by its range of resources. We were told that it is important to examine the causes of road accidents. Did the accidents happen because of the configuration of the road or the road surface? It is equally important to examine the state of mind of the driver of the car that may have caused an accident. What provoked the driver to behave in the way that they did? Those important issues must also be examined in Northern Ireland.

Road safety should affect every aspect of our lives. At the weekend, I found an appropriate quotation that, I feel, encapsulates the issue of road safety:

“Safety is not a gadget but a state of mind.”

When we are on the roads, we should provide a safe environment for everyone by putting safety first.

The Road Safety Authority in the South of Ireland, which has its headquarters in Ballina, County Mayo, is charged with improving Ireland’s poor road safety record. It is responsible for several road safety programmes, including education, testing and licensing for drivers, vehicle testing and standards, road safety research, and the establishment and administration of a driving instructor register. It will also be responsible for managing Ireland’s driver test centre network. We need such a body in Northern Ireland, which must be co-ordinated with the law enforcement agencies on the island and with the Road Safety Authority. We should also have joint advertisements and promotion schemes that urge safety on our roads.

At present, road safety in the North is managed by two Departments, which work with the Police Service. There is also the Road Safety Council, which has inadequate resources to run a road safety programme. In fact, road safety education officers employed by the Department of the Environment cannot now attend district road safety committee meetings to talk about the important issue of road safety. How can the Department of the Environment garner information about road safety in district council areas, or assist with programmes to reduce the number of road traffic accidents, if it does not hear the views of the local community? Perhaps the views of local community representatives do not mean anything to the Department or the Minister.

In a recent letter to me, the current Minister with responsibility for the environment disregarded the need for road safety co-ordination and cohesion because, according to him, the Department of the Environment co-ordinates everything; it does not. The Department does not have the necessary authority, will or expertise to do its job of improving safety on our roads. We must ask the basic question: what priority has been given to road safety by the current direct-rule Administration? Their ad hoc, disjointed and reactive approach must be refuted and challenged. Current policies must be changed urgently, but that will only happen if an incoming Executive and Assembly have the will to ensure that road safety is of paramount importance and a number one priority.

Other Members have already referred to an overall lack of resources and only reduced resources being available for structural road maintenance. Over the past few years, the Department for Regional Develop­ment has not had the commitment to adequately fund structural road improvement.

During the first period of devolution, the Minister of the Environment ensured that the number of road safety education officers was increased. Unfortunately, the return of direct rule put a brake on road safety initiatives. That attitude in the DOE and the NIO must change.

Over the Christmas period, there were radio and TV reports of fatalities on the roads. Many reasons can be given for those fatalities, but we need to go back to basics and ask why each accident happened. One fact remains: families have been bereaved and have suffered a great sense of loss at a time when they should have been celebrating the birth of hope and expectation, and looking forward to a new year.

On Boxing Day, I visited the mother of one of the young people who sadly was killed over the Christmas period. Her sense of loss was palpable, and she told me that she could not bear to let her son go. Sadly, she had to. I hope that her words will lead us to ensure that something is done about road safety.

Although the number of deaths on our roads has declined over the past number of years, we must give hope to those who have been bereaved. We must urge the incoming Executive and Assembly to guarantee the establishment of a road safety authority, with a wide range of powers and resources, which can co-ordinate with the similar body in the South of Ireland and with the law enforcement agencies on this island. We must give the local population confidence, so that children, young people, adults and the elderly feel safe in their local environment and on the roads. Prioritising such road safety policies and strategies, accompanied with the appropriate resources, will go some way towards that.

If priority were given to road safety, it would provide a cheap and effective insurance policy. If we are serious about establishing a new Executive on 26 March, there is no reason why we cannot make road safety a priority.

I support the amendment. Little has been said this morning for which I do not have sympathy. Many of the factors that contribute to the carnage on our roads have been mentioned. Speed is a definite factor. Although vehicles are safer now, they are faster. They can brake and accelerate faster, meaning that the margins for error are much less than they were some time ago. Another factor is the huge rise in the number of vehicles on our roads — increased traffic density. As Jeffrey Donaldson said, statistically, the key factor in road accidents is inattention.

Other elements are just as important, and, as Margaret Ritchie said, each death is a personal tragedy for the victim’s immediate family and the wider family circle. That, clearly, is of enormous importance to our society.

I agree with something else that has been said repeatedly: devolution is the best arena in which to deal with these matters. Direct rule is remote; devolution and local Ministers offer the best opportunity for further reductions in the number of road tragedies.

I support the amendment, not least because the motion refers to a “National Road Safety Campaign”. Such a campaign exists. It is a UK-wide national road safety campaign called ‘Tomorrow’s roads: safer for everyone’. I am not saying that that campaign is exclusive, but it has been adopted and is operating throughout the UK, including in Northern Ireland. There are mixed views about the campaign’s success, but it has been implemented in regions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

A key part of the strategy is to set targets. Over a 10-year period the targets are a 40% reduction in the number of accidents where there are deaths and serious injuries, and a 50% reduction in deaths and serious injuries among children. Those have been adopted universally — apart, I have to say, from in Northern Ireland, where, unfortunately, we are talking about a 33·3% reduction in accidents that cause deaths and serious injuries and a 50% reduction in the number of children who are killed or seriously injured. Throughout the UK about 3,500 people are killed annually, and around 40,000 are seriously injured. If we get reductions of about 40%, we are talking about a substantial reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

Also, as far as the budget is concerned, this carnage costs about £3 billion nationwide, and in Northern Ireland, as we have heard, large numbers of people are killed. About 125 people died last year, and 1,750 were seriously injured, many of whom were children. Those are the sorts of figures that give us a strong motive to reinforce the current Northern Ireland road safety strategy.

There are a couple of factors that direct rule Ministers are being slow to respond to. For example, Road Safety Scotland has introduced a children’s traffic club, which provides free road safety training for three- and four-year olds. It also provides money for full- and part-time 20 mph zones in urban areas to try to reduce the speeds of vehicles. Those are the sorts of measures that an Executive here could look at. There is also, as Billy Armstrong mentioned, a voluntary advanced training course in safe driving called Pass Plus, and that is being taken up universally as well.

While none of us has the answer to this problem or can say that we can get massive reductions, we need an ongoing campaign, not least for an increase in public awareness. There have been steady reductions year by year in the number of people who have been killed or seriously injured on the roads, but public awareness is such that there is no room for complacency. Some measures currently under consideration have merit.

For example, the age group most likely to pass the driving test is young men aged between 18 and 25. However, those same people are 20 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on the roads than middle-aged men. That indicates a clear need for a fundamental change in the way in which we test people’s driving. We appear to be training them to pass a test rather than to drive safely, so tougher extended driving tests, including rigorous training programmes, is one measure that might bear fruit.

Safer driving could be included in the school curriculum. It is another of the measures being considered that also has merit. The Swedes have a system whereby students can begin training on the public roads at the age of 16. They have to do 120 hours of training before they are ready to take the test. Those are the sorts of training and education measures that we need. Cars are very sophisticated pieces of machinery and, while they are safer than ever before, because of their speed, ability to brake quickly and acceleration, the margins for error are smaller, which means that serious training is needed.

As Jeffrey Donaldson said, there is also the new Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 2007. That adds penalty points where we formerly levied fines. There can be penalty points for using a mobile phone or for not wearing seat belts, and the police can seize vehicles that are being driven without insurance.

There are a number of measures being brought in or under consideration. It is important when discussing such a serious subject to understand where we are and the measures that are in place.

There are measures in place. I am not here to argue on behalf of the Department of the Environment’s road safety directorate. However, it has had successes in recent years, and, while we are not complacent, it is important that we look carefully at where it has been successful and at the measures that it plans to put into place. That is the way to improve the figures and to ensure that there is a reduction in the carnage on the roads.

It is also important, owing to the nature of the motion, to reflect on the North/South co-operation that is already in place. The Executive instituted that in the days of devolution. It features an annual joint road-safety campaign; joint research on road accidents in border areas; and mutual recognition of endorsements of road traffic offences. It is important to recognise and to acknowledge that, rather than to ignore it or to pretend that there is no strategy in place. No one is saying that road safety stops at the border — far from it. We are part of a wider strategy, and delivery of that strategy by a local Administration with cross-border co-operation is the way forward.

I support the amendment. This is a subject on which we can all work together while looking to reinforce the Northern Ireland road safety strategy that is currently in place and to find other measures to further reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on the roads.

I support the motion. This is a timely debate, coming as it does after the Christmas recess, during which there has been continuing carnage on the roads. Thankfully, however, there has been a reduction across the island of Ireland with 39 fewer deaths last year than in 2005. While we should not become complacent, it is nevertheless important to recognise the work that is being done by various civil agencies. Unfortunately, the World Health Organization estimates that the number of people killed and injured on the roads will increase by 60% between 2000 and 2020. We are halfway there already.

Road deaths and injuries are preventable. My concern is that people think that road deaths are inevitable and a daily occurrence. People often dismiss danger by saying that it would be more dangerous to cross the road. Unfortunately, they are correct, but there does not seem to be a system to rectify that, to reduce the number of deaths and to make the roads safer.

That could be achieved in several different ways — for instance, by making additions to roads and changing road design. Cycle paths are important because cyclists are among the most vulnerable road users, particularly in towns. We want to encourage people to cycle more, so we must provide pathways and encourage cyclists to use them, not only in the urban situation but in rural areas. Safer pathways for pedestrians are also necessary.

Slow lanes for tractors are also required; one of the main frustrations on country roads is the slow pace at which those vehicles move. Some areas have introduced slow carriageways in certain parts and for short distances. Unfortunately, that can create its own problems as traffic moves and pulls back out onto the main road; however, tractors are being used more and more for the transportation of vehicles, diggers and equipment, so we must find a fast-track approach to the issue. We must design roads differently to take account of the changing nature of road users.

My colleague Conor Murphy raised the issue of dual carriageways in reference to the Dromore bypass and the new A1. The same situation arises in other areas — for example, a vehicle crossing a dual carriageway has its tail sticking out onto the fastest lane of the carriageway, or a slow-moving tractor tries to cross both lanes.

More dangers are being created for tractor users, those in slow-moving vehicles and those in oncoming vehicles. The safety of those drivers and their passengers is being compromised. We must find ways in which to deal with all those problems in order to improve road users’ health and safety.

The good work done by the Committee on the Environment led to the decision to introduce seat belts and smaller seats for children on school buses. It is important to note, however, that, despite the Committee’s efforts, the situation has not improved. School buses in my area still travel with 60 or 70 children on board, perhaps 20 of whom are standing. It is difficult enough when schoolchildren must sit three to a seat, which has long been the situation. However, schoolchildren’s safety is increasingly endangered as a result of having to stand on buses, perhaps for a journey of two or three miles. They risk sliding about as they move up and down the bus, carrying large school bags. The Committee’s recommendations must be implemented. The issues that I have raised highlight the change that is required.

Road design is also a concern, especially in the many rural areas that are being urbanised. The first requests that people who build mansions in the countryside make is for a kerbed footpath to be built in front of it and for street lighting to be installed. The result is that there is lighting for about 10 or 20 yds, followed by complete darkness. People who wish to keep vehicles off the wee bit of grass outside their home are protecting it by putting large stones or big concrete blocks on it. In doing so, however, they endanger drivers who have to pull onto that grass, and who may not see the stones. In my area, people have been severely injured in accidents that have occurred because of that.

DRD has a responsibility to remove those stones — in fact, it has a legal requirement to do so, but that is not happening. Those stones are obstacles on the road. At least a vehicle will bounce off a kerb, back onto the road; however, the same vehicle will burst a tyre on the stones, go onto the grass verge and over a hedge or into a wall. The urbanisation of rural areas must be addressed, as must road design.

Road traffic accidents result in the deaths of 350 people a day across the World Health Organization region. That figure is very large. If that happened in any other walk of life, there would be a major outcry. The number of deaths each year equates to the number of people who might die in a major catastrophe. The figure is the equivalent of the population of a medium-sized city being killed each year.

At least 2·4 million people are also injured or disabled as a result of road accidents each year. Those figures come up time and time again, but, unfortunately, the injured and the disabled are often forgotten about. Deaths raise road safety’s profile; however, the injured, and what they endure in the aftermath of accidents, are often overlooked. Therefore we need a common signage system throughout the island of Ireland.

Many Members, including Mr Poots when speaking to the amendment, have raised the issue of the rigorous driver-testing framework. We need a new driving test, because ours is outdated, and many Members who spoke have accepted that. I am surprised that there is nit-picking over the motion, because the introduction of a new framework is important. If the amendment is made, the resolution will not include our call for its introduction. For that reason, I ask Members to consider supporting the motion as it stands.

The motion calls for the development of a national road safety campaign. We can nit-pick over the issue of the definition of “national”, but the reality is that people who travel back and forward across the border daily are encountering different signage, road speeds and markings. We must adopt a common approach. It does not matter that we might have a British national safety campaign and an Irish national safety campaign — the two can combine. The priority is to reduce the number of injuries and deaths on the road and the number of accidents. Therefore it is important that the House unite on the issue of road safety. We should adopt a common approach to road deaths and their impact rather than allow ourselves to get sidetracked by politics.

We are supposed to be two European regions working side by side. We were told that all those differences would be done away with whenever we joined the European Economic Community (EEC). All those things that we were told would unify us — common signage and road speeds — we do not have, unfortunately. I ask Members to examine and deal with that very important element.

My colleague Francie Brolly pointed out that in the South, insurance and MOT certificates must be displayed along with the tax disc. It is important to know, before drivers go on the road, that the quality of vehicles has been tested and that people are insured. Too often, people are victims of someone who is not insured and find that they have no comeback. The most dangerous person on the road is frequently the one who has no insurance. We should not split hairs on this matter, but should work together to ensure that the number of deaths and accidents on the roads is reduced. There should also be, across the island of Ireland, a common policy and a properly financed and resourced road safety agency.

I ask Members to support the motion.

I think that it was Mr McGimpsey who said that the best way of tackling these issues would be to have in place a local Assembly — I could not agree more. Alas, that is not possible at the moment because we cannot reach the stage where Sinn Féin can bring itself to support the agencies of law and order. That is surprising — or perhaps it is not. After all, that party could not bring itself to ask the people of west Belfast to co-operate with the police when a young woman was savagely raped. Even on an issue such as road safety, I have not heard one Sinn Féin Member say that it is a matter for the police. It is, although many other agencies also need to be involved.

That is why my colleague and I tabled the amendment. We want to lift the matter out of the political domain and out of politics altogether. It has nothing to do with politics. The message that has to go out loud and clear from this Assembly today is that we are united in our concern about road safety and the carnage that is happening on our roads. If the signs are anything to go by, that is not going to be the case. That is regrettable. I am sure that those who will vote against the amendment, when they go away and think it over, will conclude that they could have done better. However, I hope that they will stop and consider their ways.

I wish to bring some figures to the attention of the Assembly. While I do not want go through a long list of statistics, some are important to note. Of course, these are PSNI figures, and the fact that I mention the PSNI may run a cold sweat up some people’s backs. What a terrible thing to do in a democratic society. However, I will take that risk. The figures produced by the PSNI cover the period from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006. During that time, nearly 5,100 people were injured in road traffic collisions — a quite staggering figure, by any standards. That resulted in more than 8,377 casualties, of which 11% — 895 — were children under 16 years of age. It is important that the Assembly take cognisance of the significance of that statistic.

That brings me to the number of collisions. The figures show that they have dropped from 5,240 in 2004-05 to 5,098 in 2005-06. That represents a small but nevertheless welcome decrease of 2·7%.

We have a responsibility — though not exclusive — to consider young drivers, although that may not run with every Member. The issue of young drivers must be tackled in a way that will make a real impact on the carnage on our roads. It is not true to say that young drivers cause all accidents. However, figures show that a high percentage of young drivers are involved in road accidents. Do people of 17 or 18 years of age have adequate experience to drive a vehicle at 60 or 70 miles an hour? I strongly contend that they do not.

Furthermore, a driver with R plates should not be permitted to carry four passengers. A young person who passes a driving test and displays R plates on a car does not become an experienced driver the next day — only years of driving can only do that. The issue of R-plated drivers carrying four passengers in their cars must be considered. The Government — especially the DOE — have a responsibility to take a long, hard look at the driving test to see if it is adequate. Is it true that a young driver who passes his or her driving test and displays R plates for a year is an experienced diver? I do not believe that it is true. A year is not a long enough time to gain experience in any walk of life.

The volume of traffic on our roads has risen to such a level that our road infrastructure is now under threat and cannot cope adequately with the volume of vehicles, especially heavy goods vehicles. Freight transportation is important in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and the volume of heavy goods vehicles travelling from the west of the Province to the docks and elsewhere is increasing. Our economy is therefore heavily dependent on heavy goods vehicles, and that creates more tension and problems on the roads.

I heard that a Member narrowly avoided a serious accident while travelling to the Assembly this morning. A heavy goods vehicle pulled out into the centre of the carriageway and the tail of the vehicle was hanging over one of the lanes. The Member had to swerve round the heavy goods vehicle to prevent an accident. Such situations continually happen on our roads.

I appeal sincerely to Members who feel the need to score silly political points to desist from doing so. This is not an issue for scoring political points. There will be plenty of opportunities in the future for Members to score political points against their opponents, but they should not use this issue to do that. If the Assembly does not present a united voice on this issue, we will send the wrong message to the public. Our constituents — no matter who they are or where they are from — will not thank us for it.

In Margaret Ritchie’s contribution, she mentioned a visit that she had made to a mother who has lost someone near and dear to her. There are too many such homes across the Province. I do not think that that parent or anyone else in that home — no matter their political background — would thank the Assembly for doing a good job of merely highlighting the issue, not uniting on it.

I appeal for unity here today, in order to send a clear message to the Government, the Department of the Environment (DOE) and all those involved in road safety that we care.

I want to bring the attention of the Assembly to the Cool FM road safety roadshow, and to commend it for the work that it is doing. This powerful show brings together all the rescue agencies — the Ambulance Service, the Fire and Rescue Service, the medical service and the police — and travels to various schools and focal points. I commend it to the Assembly and to the general public of Northern Ireland. The show graphically illustrates the real issues of road safety and how important it is that everyone should treat the matter seriously.

My time is up; I commend the amendment to the House and ask for united support.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I commend the motion. It is unfortunate that although all parties agreed to have a debate on this subject, an amendment has been introduced which, despite Maurice Morrow’s words about political point-scoring, leads to division in the House. Yesterday was a good day; everyone agreed on the two motions, and I thought that we would have three in a row today, but unfortunately that is not to be the case.

In proposing the motion, my comrade Raymond McCartney told us that road deaths have no boundary of geography, class or creed, and how, in this Building last year, Ursula Quinn had provided a personal and poignant testimony to the enduring effect of a road death on a family. That event gained all-party support and a pledge to support the work of the “Driving Kills” group. Raymond also warned against complacency about road deaths and how it compounded the suffering of the bereaved.

By and large, Members were united in their comments. Edwin Poots talked about the different road traffic system in the South, and how the current driving test was a nonsense. He said that it needed to test real ability, to bring into consideration dual carriageways and differing road conditions, and to be more practical. That was covered in the motion, so I am not sure why that matter was raised.

Sam Gardiner called on the DOE and the Depart­ment for Regional Development to be more proactive; he said that road signs are often obliterated, and that road markings could be improved. He believed that a better use of modern technology could help to warn drivers of excessive speed or difficult road conditions.

I had intended to speak in the debate, but I just want to say to the Member that a drunk driver killed my brother and his wife in Donegal 10 years ago. He served only weeks in prison for his offence. We later discovered that he had a previous conviction in the North for drunk driving. If we had harmonisation and common policies, as Francie Molloy called for, would that have led to a longer term of imprisonment for a person who, literally, got away with murder? Would there be a higher penalty for someone who killed two people and left two children in intensive care for a long period? Thankfully, they have recovered.

That is the reason for my intervention. I hope that the Member takes my point. I was upset, because of those personal circumstances, at not being able to participate in the debate. I support Raymond McCartney’s motion, but as a Member for a border constituency I ask Ms Gildernew to agree that common and collective cross-border policies would help reduce the loss of lives.

I thank the Member for his intervention. We support the harmonisation of road traffic systems and legislation so that offenders with previous convictions have those offences taken into consideration and can be dealt with appropriately.

Many Members have lost people on the roads, including constituents, and we all have visited the sad houses of those killed on the roads. That is no different in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where there are heartbreaking circumstances around some of the deaths. The fact that one is more likely to be killed around the border is an indictment that needs to be addressed. John Dallat said that he thought there would be more joint initiatives and more harmonisation of penalty points post-St Andrews. He talked about the “red-flag” Act and how speed and drink-driving contributed to road deaths. He spoke of the need for road traffic education using France and Scandinavia as examples.

Education was a common theme throughout the debate. John Dallat pointed to examples from the Twenty-six Counties, where the Road Safety Authority has 309 full-time staff and many more powers to reduce road deaths. He said that extending those powers throughout the island would help reduce deaths on the roads. He also talked about the driving test and how people can be caught drink-driving the following morning when they think it is safe to drive. He mentioned the need for a new approach to the issue and the need to harness experience across the island and work together. That was a positive contribution. John also talked about the adverts on television and the fact that they encourage young people to drive fast, and that road safety has to be a priority for the new Assembly and Executive.

Kieran MrCarthy said that road safety needs to be the number one priority; that there was an increased volume of traffic on the roads; that people need to have respect for cars and other road users and that cars should be treated as lethal weapons. He pointed out that the legislation was out of date and used the drink-driving limit as an example. He also mentioned the reduction in the roads budget and how that had adversely affected the introduction of seat belts on buses.

Jeffrey Donaldson said that although there was a reduction in road deaths, the figure was still too high and that, unfortunately, Lagan Valley topped the league table for fatalities. He said that the statistics are frightening and that more deaths occur in rural areas. He talked about the percentage of young men in the road accident figures and said that 50% of accidents are down to careless driving. He also talked about education, the retraining of driving offenders, the draft Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, and the all-party group on road safety that hopefully will not lead to the same divisiveness that we saw from some Members this morning.

Billy Armstrong spoke about education and the changes to legislation. Conor Murphy talked about the difficulties with border roads. He mentioned the work of CAWT, and that people are much more likely to be involved in an accident in border areas. He talked about speed, road structure and due diligence. He said that education is vital and that young men are more likely to be involved in accidents. He suggested that the education process should be extended to primary schools.

One point Conor made was about detection and appropriate punishment, and how that should concern all agencies on the island. That would impact on what Mr Ramsey just said. Conor talked about road structure in rural areas and highlighted the difficulties and the amount of lobbying that had to be done to get street lighting on the Newry bypass. He talked about people who drive unfit vehicles and how those who sell such vehicles cannot evade their responsibilities.

Margaret Ritchie talked about the strategy, policies and the implementation plan for road safety; that we need robust measures, and that it should be the number one priority as it is in the Twenty-six Counties. She said we should examine the causes of accidents, the equal importance of the driver’s state of mind and what had provoked accidents. Margaret highlighted the inadequate resources for road safety and the lack of authority, will and expertise, and pointed out the direct-rule Administration’s lack of concern and will to do anything about it. She also highlighted that the sense of loss in accidents occurring during the Christmas period had been palpable.

A lot of the same themes came up. Michael McGimpsey talked about margin of error and the 18 to 25 age group — particularly in Scotland and Sweden.

Francie Molloy referred to World Health Organisation statistics and the global number of road deaths. He spoke about changes to roads and stressed that consideration must be given to the fact that road needs are different now to what they were. Francie talked also about the urbanisation of roads in rural areas and the need for common road signage.

Maurice Morrow gave us two or three minutes of vitriol. He deliberately misconstrued Connor Murphy’s contribution. I phased out his voice and quit listening after a while. It was a typical political point-scoring exercise from the DUP.

Road safety is a hugely important issue. It would have been good if all parties had united to ensure that we go forward with a commitment to make road safety a priority in the next Assembly. Everyone must work together. We need devolution, a new Executive and a new Minister to ensure that fewer people are killed on the roads.

I support the motion. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 36; Noes 26.

Ayes

Billy Armstrong, Norah Beare, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Thomas Buchanan, Gregory Campbell, Wilson Clyde, Michael Copeland, Robert Coulter, Leslie Cree, George Dawson, Nigel Dodds, Jeffrey Donaldson, Reg Empey, David Ford, Arlene Foster, Samuel Gardiner, Paul Girvan, William Hay, David Hilditch, Danny Kennedy, Kieran McCarthy, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Lord Morrow, Stephen Moutray, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, George Robinson, Iris Robinson, Peter Robinson, Mervyn Storey, Peter Weir.

Tellers for the Ayes: Billy Armstrong and David Hilditch

Noes

Alex Attwood, Dominic Bradley, Mary Bradley, Francis Brolly, Thomas Burns, Willie Clarke, John Dallat, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Gerry Kelly, Alban Maginness, Fra McCann, Raymond McCartney, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Philip McGuigan, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, John O’Dowd, Tom O’Reilly, Pat Ramsey, Sue Ramsey, Margaret Ritchie, Caitriona Ruane, Kathy Stanton.

Tellers for the Noes: Sue Ramsey and Margaret Ritchie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the ongoing tragedy of deaths and serious accidents on our roads and calls on an incoming Executive to introduce a wide ranging strategy involving all relevant agencies, including measures reflecting international best practice, to tackle the problem; with particular attention paid to those most likely to be involved in road traffic accidents.

The sitting was suspended at 1.06 pm.

On resuming (Madam Speaker in the Chair) —