Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I welcome Iain Greenway, director of the road safety and vehicle regulation division; John McMullan, from the road transport legislation branch; and John Brogan and Donald Starritt, from the road user behaviours policy and strategy branch.

For each clause, I will briefly remind Committee members of the issues that have been raised. This is only an initial consideration of the clauses to establish whether you need further information, whether you think that a clause may need to be amended or whether you require any other information from the Department.

You are all very welcome, and it is nice to see you all again. Iain, will you give a brief overview?

Mr Iain Greenway (Department of the Environment): If that is OK, Chair. It may be helpful for members if we remind ourselves how we have got to here and of the provisions in the Bill before we look at individual clauses. As you say, our focus today is on Part 2 of the Bill, which concerns drink-driving.

The Department consulted on drink-driving policy in 2009, with a consultation on the draft clauses taking place in 2012. The clauses, which were broadly supported in the consultation, provide the enabling legislation needed to establish a new drink-driving regime.

The Bill's main objective is to save lives and prevent serious injuries. From 2009 to 2013, 58 people were killed and 387 were seriously injured by drivers impaired by drink or drugs. The impact has been most keenly felt in rural communities: 79% of the fatalities and 51% of the serious injuries occurred on rural roads. Evidence strongly indicates that impairment owing to alcohol begins at levels lower that the current drink-drive limit and that young and inexperienced drivers are particularly vulnerable.

Over that same period, drivers aged 17 to 24 were responsible for 45% of all deaths and 39% of all serious injuries where driver or rider impairment through alcohol or drugs was deemed to be the cause, with impairment through alcohol being the factor in most of the cases.

We will, I am sure, come to the details of the provisions shortly, but I will now deal with the key elements of that part of the Bill. First, there will be two new drink-driving limits. There will be a main limit of 50 mg of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, with a lower limit of 20 mg for learner, novice and professional drivers. Secondly, there will be a new graduated penalty regime, with provision for fixed penalties for first-time offenders with lower levels of alcohol. Thirdly, there will be new powers for the police to set up roadside checkpoints. Finally, there will be an automatic referral of offenders on to an approved drink-drive rehabilitation course with a view to correcting inappropriate driving behaviour at an early stage, unless a judge decides that that is inappropriate.

The package of measures, and it does need to be viewed as a package of measures, is designed to create an effective deterrent to drink-driving. The clear message is that drink-driving will not be tolerated and that offenders will be caught and dealt with appropriately.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Members, you have the responses from stakeholders and the Department's response.

Clause 1 is certainly straightforward. It just defines expressions used in the Bill. Members, have you any further issues that you wish to raise? No? OK.

Clauses 2 to 15 set out amendments to existing legislation that revise the drink-drive limits and penalties, making greater use of existing rehabilitation courses for drink-drive offenders. They provide the police with additional enforcement powers and remove the right to choose which specimen is used for analysis in certain circumstances.

Clause 2, which is the first one that we will be looking at, replaces the existing prescribed drink-drive limit with two new limits, which are applicable to different categories of driver licence holder. The first limit is 50 mg per 100 millilitres and applies to a typical driver. The second limit is 20 mg per 100 millilitres and applies to specified persons, including learners, new drivers qualified for not more than two years and a range of professional drivers. Iain can comment on the issues raised by stakeholders about the clause.

Mr Donald Starritt (Department of the Environment): I will comment, Chairperson. As you might expect, there is quite a broad range of views on the clause. I will pick out the key themes. There was some support for a zero limit, especially for younger drivers. There was also recognition that, as we have proposed, 50 mg is a suitable limit. However, it is also fair to say that there was some opposition to any reduction in the limit, mainly on the basis that it is the risk of being caught rather than the limit itself that acts as a deterrent. That was the rationale for that view. That is a brief summary of the main points.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Do members have any comments on clause 2? It is fairly straightforward and lowers the drink-drive limit. I think that a lot of the members will support it.

Mr A Maginness: I seek clarity on one point. Some representations were made by professional bodies that, for taxi drivers or lorry drivers, for example, it applies only in the course of their employment.

Mr Starritt: That is right. The legislation is quite specific. They have to be acting in the capacity of a taxi driver or a professional driver.

Mr A Maginness: Therefore, any professional organisation should be satisfied with that safeguard.

Mr Starritt: That is right.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): They are subject to that lower limit only in their professional use of the vehicle. If they are driving their private car and taking the children to school, or whatever, it does not apply.

Mr Boylan: Thanks for the clarification. It is hard not to agree with it when you hear Iain outline the figures on deaths.

I want further clarification on the enforcement element. You mentioned rural roads and said that the powers are going to the PSNI. Has there been much response to that? Do you feel that it is enforceable, or is there any issue with enforcing all of this?

Mr Starritt: Enforcing the 50 mg and 20 mg limits? We may come to some points of detail as we go through the individual clauses, but, in general, the PSNI is supportive.

Mr Greenway: At lower alcohol limits, obvious impairments from outside the vehicle will perhaps be less clear-cut — the clichéd weaving across the road, for example — hence the package of measures including mandatory checkpoints, and so on, as part of the provisions. Those provide a more visible, focused enforcement as well.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): It is a deterrent for people to know that there will roadside stops. Anyone could be stopped.

Mr Greenway: They could be required to provide a breath sample without the constable needing reasonable suspicion to require that.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): You currently have to have a justifiable suspicion to stop someone or can do so if someone is involved in a collision.

Lord Morrow: It is good to hear that the police are supportive. I think that this was mentioned, but I missed it: are they satisfied that they have the capacity to enforce? I know that the legislation itself is a deterrent, and I accept that, but legislation that is either not enforced or not enforceable is sometimes not a good story, and I am concerned about that. Did the police clearly indicate that they will have the capacity to enforce the legislation?

Mr Starritt: The steer that we have been getting is that the police do have the capacity to enforce the limits set in the Bill, which are the lower limit of 50 mg for most drivers and 20 mg for specified drivers.

Lord Morrow: We are hearing different things from the Chief Constable about the PSNI's ability to enforce. It is wrong to say that that ability would not be effective. However, we know the present financial climate that we are living in. We know that an announcement has just been made — either today or yesterday — on policing. I have some concern about their capacity to enforce.

Mr Starritt: Feedback we are getting from the PSNI is that, if the limit were to be a universal 20 mg — for all drivers — that could change the picture, eventually cause difficulty in enforcement and introduce a focus on lower levels of impairment, perhaps to the detriment of a focus on higher levels.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): We move to clause 3, which retains the right of a driver to ask for a blood or urine specimen to replace a breath test if the breath test is marginally over the present prescribed limit at the new lower prescribed limits.

The Department proposes a small technical amendment to clause 3 to comply with the Examiner of Statutory Rules' recommendation on the delegated powers memorandum that the regulation-making power should be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative resolution procedure, as drafted. Will you explain to us why?

Mr John McMullan (Department of the Environment): When the delegated powers memorandum was put to the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the one point that he made was that some of our regulation-making powers should be by draft affirmative resolution rather than affirmative resolution. That is quite a simple change really. With the draft affirmative resolution procedure, we draft the regulations, and they are not made until the Assembly affirms them. With the affirmative resolution procedure, we make the regulations, but they do not come into operation. The Examiner said that draft affirmative resolution is more appropriate, and we are quite content to go along with what he said.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Will the regulations have to come back a second time to the Assembly?

Mr J McMullan: No. It is a set of regulations. Affirmative resolution has to be voted on in the Assembly. It is a technical issue as to whether it is the draft affirmative resolution procedure or the affirmative resolution procedure that is used. That causes a small technical amendment to clause 3 and has a knock-on effect for a couple of other clauses. It is a recommendation that the Examiner made, and we are quite happy to comply with it.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): What is the rationale for that?

Mr J McMullan: The reason that we had affirmative resolution in the Bill is that that was the existing legislation. However, we are now moving more to using the draft affirmative resolution procedure in all areas. It is more consistent with the approach taken nowadays.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Are members content with that?

Mr Greenway: Were any points made by respondents to the Committee's call for input on clause 3?

Mr Starritt: I do not think that the clause was specifically addressed.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Do members have any questions on clause 3? Can we very briefly go over the comments from —

Mr Weir: I want to briefly ask a question on clause 3 and the way in which it will work in practice. I understand the rationale that, if you are just over the limit, you can ask for the second test. However, from a technical point of view, does that mean that, for somebody who is marginally over the limit, there is a possibility that by the time that the police take what is effectively a second test the person will have gone under the limit, and you will get a different result based purely on a time factor? It may not necessarily be measuring what the position was at the time of the incident. What are the practicalities of that?

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I think that the police raised the point as well that after a few hours of waiting in a police station for a doctor or nurse to come, the person's blood:alcohol level will have gone down.

Mr Starritt: To recap, that is the issue with the statutory option. People who are registering marginally above the limits have the option to request a blood or urine sample.

Ms Lo: That is only at the lower limit, though.

Mr Starritt: No —

Mr Greenway: It is at all the limits.

Mr Starritt: — it is at all the limits. At the moment, the limit sits at 80 mg, and, if people are registering marginally above 80 mg, they have the statutory option.

The Department did look at the possibility of removing the statutory option. The reason that it is being retained at this point is that we got a legal opinion that suggested that its removal may run contrary to article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). As things stand, we are seeking further legal opinion on that, and I will bring that to you later in Committee Stage. I am still awaiting that view.

Mr Greenway: In response to your direct question, Peter or Chair — I cannot remember who asked it — in the intervening time period, the alcohol level may rise or fall depending on time and what the person has eaten. You cannot be certain that the level will be going down. However, the passing of time will generally lower the level. You will recall the TTC presentation with the liquids, and so on.

When the PSNI was here, it raised the practical implications of somebody exercising that right. Often the checkpoint by the side of the road has to be closed because an officer has to escort the person back to the police station. There is a broader, knock-on operational implication for the police, and not just with that individual.

It may be worth pointing out that no other signatory to the convention has that statutory option. It has never existed in Ireland, and Great Britain is in the final stages of removing it in a Bill that has been through both Houses of Parliament and is awaiting Royal Assent.

Mr Weir: We could be in a position in which we are retaining something that will not apply elsewhere. I appreciate what you said about the nature of the blood:alcohol levels, and that there can be some variation consequently. It can go up or down. As an option, however, it could only really work to the benefit of the people breathalysed. Clearly, if they are, to take an example, 5% above the limit and go for the urine test, it might take them down below the limit, which would be to their advantage. If it goes up an extra 5%, they are still over, but they are no worse off. I assume that pretty much anybody —

Ms Lo: Will want that.

Mr Weir: It may be a very marginal issue, if in court you end up with a slightly higher registration. However, in a general —

Mr Boylan: There is a different legal opinion there.

Mr A Maginness: If it does go up, I know that the consequences are still serious. If it goes up, the chances are that the penalty imposed will be higher, so you have to weigh those things in the balance.

The other point that I make is this: as far as I know, a breath test, and I am subject to your expert opinion on this, is not as accurate as, for example, a blood test.

Mr Greenway: It would be fair to say it may not be as precise. However, any one of those tests — urine, blood or breath — is taking a snapshot of a sample of one's breath. It is a sample of one breath not the next breath, or of the blood at an instant in time. Therefore, if you are trying to use any of those tests to say what the state of an individual was at the time of a collision or when pulled over by the police, even in the time from being pulled over, and for the two or three minutes that it may take the individual to exhale into the bag, the reading could change. That is why, rather than accuracy, in a scientific way I am using the word "precision" when talking about the measurement of that particular breath.

Mr A Maginness: Surely the point is, Madam Chair, that the more precise a reading is, the more just the result, and the fairer it is to the person, who is faced with a considerable penalty if found to be guilty of having consumed excess alcohol.

We have to preserve a balance in people's rights, and that is why it could contravene article 6 on the right to a fair trial.

Mr Greenway: It may be relevant to say that two breath tests are taken, and it is the lower of the two readings that are taken at the side of the road that is used. There are safeguards, balances and benefits of the doubt in the current system. There is a preliminary breath test and two evidential breath tests.

Mr Starritt: The other point to make is that the limit is currently 35 mg, and the police do not take any further action for readings of 36, 37, 38 or 39. It is only for readings of 40-plus mg that the police take further action. So, a tolerance is also built in there.

Mr Greenway: Just to clarify, 35 mg in breath is the equivalent, biologically, to 80 mg in blood.

Mr A Maginness: The problem, as I see it, is that you are dealing with very small margins. To be fair to the person who is being breath-tested, you have to allow for that. You made the point made about precision, and a breath test is not as precise as a blood test or analysis.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I certainly recall that the police, during their oral evidence, said that that option was brought in 30 years ago when the law came into force and when the breathalysers were not that accurate. That is why people had that option. However, technology has improved and breathalysers are now fairly accurate. So, they maybe see that as unnecessary.

Mr Starritt: I think that the PSNI's view is that the combination of the more reliable equipment and the built-in tolerance of not taking action on readings of 35 mg to 39 mg would justify the removal of the option.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Are you considering changing it?

Mr Starritt: We have one legal opinion that suggests a possible contravention of human rights. We are waiting on a second legal opinion.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): From where?

Mr Starritt: We have to seek that through our departmental solicitors.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): We will wait and see. I suppose that I can understand your argument that, if it is so close, people perhaps need to have the right of challenge. We will wait to see, and you will come back to us on that.

Clause 4 provides police with the power to establish a checkpoint and to require the person in charge of a vehicle to provide a breath test. Donald, will you briefly talk to us about the comments that were made on clause 4?

Mr Starritt: The main comment on the clause was one of strong support for the concept from the PSNI.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I would think so.

Mr Starritt: Even going back to the original consultation, the view the Department got was that it was the way to go.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Whether the public would like it or not is another matter. They will be pulled in and delayed on their travel.

Was there only one submission? From the PSNI? OK. There are no questions from members, so we will move on.

Clause 5 contains a number of further amendments to facilitate a new power to establish a checkpoint and require a breath test. No issues were raised on that clause and members have no questions on it. Will we move on? Are members broadly content with clause 5?

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Clause 6 contains amendments to enable the police to carry out evidential breath tests at the roadside, without the need to have first conducted a preliminary breath test. The amendments would also extend the police power of arrest that is currently linked to the preliminary breath test to enable police to arrest a person following an evidential breath test. The police talked to us about that clause. Will you explain what it all means? It sounds so complicated.

Mr John Brogan (Department of the Environment): It does two separate things. First, it removes the legislative requirement to complete a preliminary breath test before an evidential test. At the moment, because the police operate with roadside preliminary testing equipment, which is backed up by evidential testing equipment that is based in custody suites in police stations —

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): That is for urine or blood tests?

Mr Brogan: Even evidential breath-test machines are within police stations. The way that the current legislation is written requires the preliminary breath test to be carried out before an evidential test. The advent of roadside evidential tests that the police hope to bring in will remove the need for that initial preliminary test. That is what the amendment is designed to deal with.

The second purpose is very closely related and will enable the police to arrest a driver at the roadside following an evidential test. Similarly, the current legislation allows the police to arrest a person on the basis of a preliminary test but not on the basis of an evidential test. Together, the two things will enable the police to reintroduce the use of evidential roadside testing.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): That is just one breathalyser test. Is that right?

Mr Brogan: Yes.

Mr Greenway: Will there still be two bloods or one blood?

Mr Brogan: There will still be two. It is simply that the machinery, for a lot of environmental reasons, cannot be brought out on to the road. The machines that are currently in use could be subject to distortion from electrical interference. However, the new machinery that the police are about to acquire will enable them to bring testing out to the roadside without any danger of distortion.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Sorry, the battery is running low. It is warning me. Sorry about that.

Members have no questions about that clause and seem happy enough. I think that that makes it clearer.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Clause 7 enables the introduction of new administrative fixed penalties, graduated penalty points and a fine that will be applied if blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels are below the existing limits and there is no existing offence. Will officials comment on the issues that have been raised by people?

Mr Starritt: I will maybe talk a wee bit about the rationale for that. Really, the clause will allow the Department the option of issuing fixed penalties for new lower-level offences. One of the things that we will come to later is an attempt to check inappropriate behaviour quite early. We want to have the option of offering offenders drink-driving rehabilitation courses, which have been shown to be very effective.

The PSNI accepts what the Department is trying to do to check such behaviour. However, it is fair to say that they have some concerns about the process. The initial penalty could be six penalty points plus a £200 fine, but, if an offender were to agree to go on a course, it would be reduced to three penalty points and a £100 fine. If he or she subsequently did not go on the course — there is a lot of toing and froing.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): If you do not finish the course, is there not a higher penalty?

Mr Greenway: No, you do not benefit from the reduction.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): OK, so you go back to the original £200 fine.

Mr Starritt: Or if someone refuses to accept the fixed penalty, the case goes to court.

Mr Eastwood: It works with the speeding, doesn't it?

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): That is an administrative issue; you have to take the time to go back and check that they completed the course. The educational aspect of it is so important.

Mr Greenway: Absolutely. We would see rehabilitation, and, in this case, at an early stage, because this would apply to only first-time offenders below the current legal limit. Above the current legal limit, we are into bans, subject, of course, to judicial decisions on individual cases, but, as we are now, it is a ban.

This picks up on points that Lord Morrow made quite strongly when TTC came, namely how do we get to people before they cause damage to themselves and others? So, we see this rehabilitation option of attending a course — which, as Donald said, the evidence shows is successful in many cases — as very important. To access that through this route, we need to make the administration work as smoothly as we can, but we think that the overlying benefit of rehabilitation is greater than the administrative tangles that could be caused.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): This is not a temporary measure, though. We are saying to someone that you are getting that penalty because we are now lowering the limit and you are not aware of the lower limit. In a way, you are saying that.

Mr Greenway: No, we are saying, for offences below 80 mg, and they will not be for first-time offenders, subject to judicial discretion about aggravating circumstances and so on, the starting —

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): I know, but how long is this —

Mr Greenway: The starting position would be penalty points. Of course, six penalty points on somebody's licence, if they have two speeding offences on there, would disqualify them.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): But in a way you are also saying that because we have changed the limit, there is an element of bedding-in. There is the idea that we have lowered the drink-drive limit now, so you get that slight kind of allowance that you pay only a penalty. How long is that going to last?

Mr Starritt: It is more a recognition that it is a lower-level offence. It is not that we see this as a temporary or bedding-in measure. It is more the fact that, at these lower levels and, as Iain says, for first-time offences, it is more appropriate to deal with those through the course and the penalty.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Giving a warning.

Mr Brogan: That is also a common way to deal with lower levels of alcohol in other member states. I am not aware of any other member state that would impose a disqualification at lower alcohol levels of 20 mg or 50 mg. That would be very unusual.

Mr Greenway: We have to temper that slightly by the fact that Scotland does exactly that. As the Committee may be aware, Scotland is lowering its drink-drive limit imminently, within days or weeks, but it does not have the power under the Scotland Act 2012 to amend the penalties, so it has no choice but to disqualify at the lower levels. However, that is an anomaly due slightly to the constitutional settlement. John is right: elsewhere in Europe there is this sense of graduation.

Mrs Cameron: It sounds sensible to me. In my mind, it would be described as permanent, ongoing education in a way. Every year, people will be learning to drive and getting licences. That is ongoing, so it would have to be permanent. It sounds fair, measured and a sensible clause.

Mr A Maginness: Could professional drivers who marginally exceed the new limit of 20 mg be subject to disqualification?

Mr Starritt: If it was marginally over the 20 mg, they would be offered the fixed penalty of £200 and six points for a first offence, and then, if they chose the course, it would be £100 and three points. So it would be exactly the same punishment at that lower level.

Mr A Maginness: If there was a disqualification, it would be much more serious than for an ordinary person, because driving is their livelihood. It would be very disproportionate, and I just wonder how the courts are going to deal with that.

Mr Starritt: Well, as I say, for a first-time offence and at those low levels, disqualification would not apply, provided the fixed penalty was accepted by the driver.

Mr A Maginness: Do you see the point I am making, Chair? It has a much more serious impact on a professional driver.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): But they are still given that first chance of paying the penalty and not being disqualified.

Mr Greenway: You can argue, taking Alban's point, that if you are a lorry driver driving an HGV and you are caught at 25 mg, shall we say, if we had automatic disqualification for exceeding the limit — i.e. if we did not introduce this clause — there would be disqualification subject to judicial discretion. Here we are saying that, for a first time offence and subject to there not being sufficient penalty points on that licence for other speeding and seatbelt offences to make it tot up to 12, the licence would not be lost. But a second offence, in the later clause, would incur an automatic default sentence of a three-year ban.

We also have found, from some analysis that we did of judicial decisions under the current law, that a range of judicial discretion is being applied for first-time offences and indeed for repeat offences, whereas, in current law, there are particular sentences and a minimum sentence. There is a significant amount of judicial discretion being applied, and what we are finding, for instance, is that very, very few drink driving offenders these days receive a fine. The disqualification is deemed the punishment, if you like, rather than the financial penalty, which is dependent on ability to pay. The punishment that it creates depends on people's income rather than the crime, if you like.

Mr A Maginness: But on a second offence, if you are subject to a three-year ban, it has a huge impact on your life if you are a taxi driver or a lorry driver.

Mr Greenway: The reverse argument would be, if you are driving with alcohol in your system on repeated occasions, and you are driving such vehicles, there are significant risks to safety.

Mr A Maginness: No, I understand the point you are making, and it is well made.

Mr Boylan: I saw a note in relation to clause 3 about the media campaign. I was quite shocked when we received the presentation from one of the groups about what you would actually be allowed to drink. If that had got out, I could imagine a lot of people testing it to the limits for the extra one or half measure, because it was alarming. But my point is that, and I understand this clause is dealing with the courts, surely the message and the media plan should be about not driving after even one drink. That is the whole idea for such low limits. That is the key. How are you going to roll the media campaign out?

Mr Greenway: There will be a media campaign. Our current media campaigns are never, ever drink and drive, and there was an interesting exchange between Eddie of TTC and Ian McCrea about breathalysers in vehicles. The TTC said that it is a bad idea, because it gives people almost the challenge of getting up to the limit. Assuming the legislation receives Royal Assent, secondary legislation would be required. The phasing of that and commencement will be determined with the police, because some of it, as we have mentioned, requires new equipment and so on. There will be extensive media communication and messages in advance of the changes, but not too far in advance, using best practice on the best times and the best channels.

Mr Boylan: There are concerns about the rising death toll this year. Iain, you gave a few figures at the start. Have you any figures, even from last year, on those drink-driving offences and the type of penalties that were served over the last number of years?

Mr Greenway: We do have analysis of the sentencing records. Now, that only went up to about 2011, from memory. But we would be happy to share those. I do not think there was any sensitive data; there were numbers, rather than names, both for first-time offenders and repeat offenders. But it was not contemporaneous, just because of the trawling back into the Court Service systems.

Mr Boylan: At this time of year, in the run-up to Christmas or just after Christmas, you always get the PSNI figures for the number of people who have been stopped over the Christmas period. But I know that on the gardaí site, all the different types of offences are listed on a monthly basis.

Mr Greenway: In 2012, 2,300 people were prosecuted for drink-driving offences. In 2011, it was 2400 and in 2010, it was 2600. Whether or not you can read a decline into those figures over the three years, they are of that order.

We can only conjecture what the addition will be. We do not have data on how many people are driving around with alcohol levels between 50 mg and 80 mg, because, of course, it is not an offence; it does not turn the breathalyser red. But we can conjecture, and I think we have done some approximate numbers. It would be several hundred extra.

Mr Brogan: Fewer than a thousand.

Mr Greenway: Fewer than a thousand extra was our projection, but they are projections, using some of the experience in the South, for instance, where they have introduced a lower limit than other jurisdictions.

Ms Lo: They saw a dramatic drop.

Mr Eastwood: This is slightly off topic, Chair. What they do on a lot of the radio stations in the South, every day, as part of the ad sections, is tell you how many have died this week, this month and this year. I think that just to read out the figures is actually quite powerful.

Ms Lo: Is that an advertisement, or is it just information fed to the news desk?

Mr Eastwood: No, it is put out as an advertisement, in the same way —

Mr Greenway: — and paid for.

Mr Eastwood: — that your advertisement would be paid for. Yes.

Mr Greenway: It is the number of people charged with or convicted of drink driving, the number of penalty points and the number of fatalities.

Mr Eastwood: Yes, that is it.

Ms Lo: Would the Budget cuts affect your ability to have a really comprehensive advertising campaign? Cathal is right: we need a good communications package for this.

Mr Greenway: We will put together a good communication package. The likely Budget settlements will make that more challenging, but the Department will need to rise to that challenge.

Mr Boylan: Yes, and indicate how many police stations will be closed.

Ms Lo: Members, we will move on then to clause 8, which will allow a reduced penalty for completion of an approved course for drink-driving offenders. No issues were raised on this clause. There is good, positive support for this. Members, are there any issues you want to raise with the officials, or are you broadly content?

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): We will move on then to clause 9. This clause enables police to issue further fixed penalty fines for non-completion of an approved course for drink-driving offenders. I think the issue would really be administrative costs and time to monitor it and check back. No issue has been sent in from anyone else. The police did mention that, I think, at the very beginning.

Mr Greenway: That language may have led to your earlier question, Chair, whether that was an additional penalty for not going on the course. But this additional penalty is to bring it back up to baseline. You say you will go on a course, you receive the reduced penalty points, but you need to come back up, if for whatever reason you do not attend within the limit. So it is additional to what you are given, but only back up to where it would have been.

Ms Lo: Should there be an increase in penalty if they say they will go on the course, and then they do not? It is a waste of your time, police time and everyone's time.

Mr Greenway: If they book it and then do not attend, I am sure there is a cancellation fee that is charged by the provider, because they have taken the space.

Ms Lo: How much does it cost to go on it?

Mr Brogan: It costs £155.

Mr Greenway: With a reduction for —

Mr Brogan: There is a concessionary fee. I am not sure what that is. I think that it might be £110.

Mr Greenway: There is a reduction of about 25% for hardship cases.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): So, if you are on benefits or something like that, you could get 25% off? That is still quite —

Mr Brogan: Throughout the operation of our courses for drink-driving offenders, we have always tried to emphasise that they are voluntary. The course providers argue strongly that they get best value from those who attend voluntarily rather than compulsorily or who feel that they are there simply to avoid something worse like disqualification.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): As all the courses are run during the daytime, it means that people have to take time off work to attend them. It could be a bit of a stigma to have to tell your boss that you were going to that course every week. Are they all run during the daytime?

Mr Brogan: Yes, as far as I know.

Mr Greenway: They will probably have been reported in the local papers as having been convicted, if they were disqualified, so the stigma will probably exist anyway.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): OK. Clause 10 allows for additional penalties to be imposed for the non-payment of fixed-penalty fines. No issues were raised about that clause. Are members content to move on to the next clause?

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): OK. Clause 11 enables further penalty points to be endorsed on an offender's driving record, without the need for a hearing in court, when it is established that an he or she has failed to complete a course satisfactorily. Are members happy with that?

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): OK. We will move on. Clause 12 introduces a graduated minimum disqualification period that is linked to the amount of alcohol consumed at the time of detection. The comments that were received were all supportive of that clause. Members, are you OK with the clause?

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): OK. Clause 13 imposes the current minimum penalty of 36 months' disqualification on offenders who have been convicted of more than one offence within 10 years. The comments received all support that clause. Are members happy with that?

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): Clause 14 makes a referral to a course for drink-driving offenders automatic. Comments received were all supportive of that clause. There are no issues. Are members happy with that clause?

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): OK. We move on. Clause 15 contains an enabling power for the Department to make regulations that will provide for the recovery of costs associated with the management and administration of the courses for drink-driving offenders. No issues were raised with that clause. Are members content with that clause?

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): OK. We have completed the informal consideration of the Bill's clauses up to clause 15. We will leave the next part for the meeting next week. Will we see you next week?

Mr Greenway: I will be here with different colleagues to discuss the next part of the Bill.

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): OK. Thank you very much. This part is the easy part.

Mr Greenway: I wondered whether you wanted to nod through the graduated driver licensing

I take it from Peter's laugh that the answer is probably "No".

The Chairperson (Ms Lo): We will see you next week.