Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Humphrey): I welcome Mr Donald Starritt and Mr John Brogan from road safety and vehicle regulation division. I apologise for the delay. We have had difficulty in getting a quorum today, with members not making themselves available or not turning up. Please make a brief presentation, and members will then ask questions.

Mr John Brogan (Department for Infrastructure): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity to meet you today. The consultation that we are discussing today followed on from the passage of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill through the Assembly just over a year ago. The new Act contains the primary legislation needed to introduce the new drink-driving regime in Northern Ireland. I will spend a short time running through some of the main changes that the Act will bring.

There will be two new lower drink-drive limits: 50 mg for the typical driver and a lower limit of 20 mg for learner and novice drivers and some professional drivers. There will be a new graduated penalty regime, with new fixed penalties for lower-level offences. The Act includes new police powers to set up dedicated drink-drive checkpoints, which were introduced just before Christmas. We should see a greater number of drink-drivers completing the drink-drive rehabilitation course designed to make offenders take more responsibility for their actions and reduce the risk of reoffending.

With the primary legislation in place, it was important to introduce the new regime in full through secondary legislation, and that is what this consultation was about. From the outset, we made it clear that the purpose of the consultation was to look specifically at the secondary legislation and that we were not looking for comments on the framework of the new regime that I have just described because that framework has already been agreed by the Assembly in approving the primary legislation.

The consultation ran for 10 weeks from 21 March until 27 May of last year. A total of 11 responses was received. The five draft statutory rules (SRs) included in the paper related to three distinct issues: the introduction of a new fixed penalty system for offences at lower levels of alcohol; restricting the requirement to resit the driving test to those disqualified for 12 months or more; and the blood:alcohol threshold that applies to high-risk offenders.

I will look at each of those areas in turn, beginning with the new fixed penalty system. Under the new regime, fixed penalty notices will be offered to first-time offenders whose breath test reading is above the new lower drink-drive limit but below the current drink-drive limit: that is between 20 mg or 50 mg, depending on your circumstances, and 79 mg. If you accept the fixed penalty notice, it is important to note, the offence will not result in a criminal conviction and will not create a criminal record. There will be no disqualification period for first offences at the new lower limits.

In addition, a lower fixed penalty notice will be offered if you agree to complete one of the courses for drink-drive offenders. Three new SRs were needed to bring the new fixed penalty system into operation. The first will specify the two existing drink-drive offences as fixed penalty offences, while the other two will set the amount of the fine and the number of penalty points to be included in the fixed penalty.

You will see on pages 4 and 5 of the synopsis a range of the responses received. On pages 5 and 6, there is an outline of the Department's analysis of those responses. Consultees raised no issues about the specified fixed penalty offences, and, likewise, no issues were raised about the level of fines or the level of penalty points.

The second topic is the requirement to resit the driving test after disqualification. That is on page 7. Currently, if a person is convicted of drink-driving, the court must order them to be disqualified for a minimum of 12 months. The general term we use here is, "disqualified until tested", meaning that, at the end of the period of disqualification, if you want to start driving again, you must apply for a provisional licence and retake and pass the theory and practical driving tests. It is not viewed really as a punishment but, instead, recognises that you have not driven a vehicle for a long time and would need and benefit from retraining. Under the new regime, if you are convicted and your alcohol level is above the new limit but below the current limit of 80, a minimum disqualification period of six months would apply. The Department proposed that the requirement to resit the test should apply only to those disqualified for 12 months or more. The responses received indicate broad but not unanimous support for the proposal, and I will be happy to pick up on that later.

The final SR relates to high-risk offenders (HROs). Currently, you are categorised as a high-risk offender if you are disqualified for being at two and a half times the limit — currently 200 milligrams or more — if you fail to provide a sample to the police for analysis or if you are convicted of two drink-drive offences or more within 10 years. A HRO will face higher sanctions. You will not be able to automatically apply for the return of your licence at the end of the disqualification. You will face an independent medical examination, and the assessment from that must show that you have no apparent alcohol dependency before DVA will consider the application.

Question 3 on page 10 asked consultees whether they agreed with the Department's approach of reducing the current threshold for HROs to two and a half times the new prescribed limit of 50 milligrams. The threshold would fall from 200 milligrams to 125 milligrams. Again, the majority of respondents were in favour of the proposal.

The final question in the consultation invited comments. It is the standard question on the consultation process. I am glad to say there were no problems or concerns raised in that area.

I will give a quick sum-up of the responses. Comments were generally supportive, although, in a few cases, support was qualified. A number of respondents raised issues outside the scope of the consultation; in other words, issues that had already been considered and approved by the Assembly. In those cases, it was felt a short recap of the policy decision-making would be useful, and we included that in the synopsis of responses that we hope to publish on the Department's website as soon as possible.

Just before finishing, perhaps I can talk briefly about what has happened since the consultation ended and, more importantly, what happens next. First, I am pleased to report that the first phase of the new drink-drive regime has been implemented. On 24 November last, the PSNI launched its annual winter drink-drive operation using the 2016 Act. Previously, before they could breath-test a driver, a police officer needed to have reasonable suspicion that the driver had taken alcohol: there may have been something odd about the way they were driving or they may have seen a moving traffic offence or been called to a collision. That is not going to change, but the new legislation means the police can also set up a roadside checkpoint solely for carrying out breath tests. We hope that will act as an even more visible physical deterrent and make it clear to anybody thinking of driving after having even one drink that the risk of being stopped and tested is greater than ever.

You may have seen reports in the media about the recent operation. It ran from 24 November through to 3 January this year. In that time, the police tested almost 11,000 people. That is more than twice as many as last year; it is a 125% increase. Of those, 383 were over the limit, which is a marginal decrease of 4% on the previous year. An additional 300 people received warnings because, while they provided a positive breath test, they were below the current legal limit. We hope they heed that warning, because, when the new limits come into place, they will not be so lucky.

The second and final stage of the regime will see the commencement of the new limits and the introduction of the regulations that we have discussed today. From the Department's perspective, work on drafting the secondary legislation is well advanced, and it will be ready when needed. Perhaps the key remaining issue that is critical to introducing the new regime is the availability of new mobile evidential breath-testing devices that are capable of testing at the new lower limits. At the moment, the PSNI uses testing equipment that has gone through a rigorous Home Office-type approval process, but it needs new equipment to test reliably at the new lower limits. While we know that the Home Office is working to approve the new devices, we cannot, unfortunately, be specific about a timeline for when they will be available for the police to use. I expect a fairly long lead-in period for that testing process, but it is important that the type approval testing is done and done right, because the devices provide the key evidence when a case arrives in court. Our Minister and the Justice Minister are working with the Home Office on that, and you can be sure that we will update the Committee as soon as we are aware of a start date. That is all I had to say, Mr Chairman.

Ms Armstrong: Thank you very much. That was a comprehensive review of the responses. I notice that the Freight Transport Association said it would welcome notification of the new limits being given out to the public, as well as to the industry and professional drivers; obviously, that is its response to the consultation. As an outcome of that, is that being considered for a promotional campaign? On what date do we think the new limits are coming in?

Mr Brogan: I cannot be specific about the date of the limit, but, certainly, we have plans to advertise and publicise the introduction of the new limits to make everyone very clear. We will have to engage in particular with the likes of the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association, whose members will be especially affected by it because they will be subjected to the lower limit. So yes, we have plans and need to do that.

Ms Armstrong: Some of the campaign work that has been done shows a person what that limit looks like in a glass: I hope that that sort of imagery will be used again so that people are very clear that it looks like one glass of wine, half a pint of beer or whatever it may be. I am keen for that to go forward because of personal experience of losing a loved one who was killed by a drunk driver. Will that promotional work, alongside maybe the health agencies, be considered?

Mr Donald Starritt (Department for Infrastructure): I think that, sometimes, we are caught in a dilemma. That is, on the one hand, a very good visual demonstration of the limit; on the other hand, the amount will vary, and the strength varies greatly. Our overall message is to never drink and drive. We do not want to dilute that in any way. It is about finding the right balance in the campaign, but, certainly, I agree: I have seen that visual demonstration, and it makes people think.

Ms Armstrong: You talked about the type approval for the mobile breathalyser units and said that the Ministers were working with the Home Office on that: how far down that road are we? Are we a year away or two years away?

Mr Starritt: It is fair to say that we had hoped that there would not be this delay; we hoped that the devices would be available. We, as officials, have been in contact with our counterparts in DOJ and have spoken to Home Office officials. They hope to be fairly close to getting an approved device quite soon, but it needs to be tested. Their testing process is about six or seven months.

Realistically, it could be 12 months, but we are looking at ways of accelerating that. At the same time, we need to be 100% sure that the equipment and processes we use are defensible and reliable.

Ms Armstrong: Finally, Chair, I want to ask about the course being offered. The speed awareness course has been fantastic; it has been a revelation in Northern Ireland. If people are offered the opportunity to go on that course, can they be referred to health professionals if there is an issue with that as part of it. Is that being considered?

Mr Brogan: No, the referral to the course would not include any health professional involvement. The health assessment would kick in only where a person was designated a high-risk offender, and it would come in towards the end of their period of disqualification. The course does not seek to address the harm caused generally by alcohol; it really is just about the effect it has on a person's driving ability. It tries to make that person more aware of the responsibility they have as a driver but not the overall effect of alcohol.

Mr G Robinson: Three hundred and eighty-three people were convicted during the crackdown. Does that apply only to the Christmas period? Should it not be applied all the year through?

Mr Brogan: The use of the roadside checkpoints will continue. It will be an operational decision for the police rather than any influence we have, but I expect that the police would wish to continue it. The figures I used today from the PSNI are something it publishes at the end of every winter drink-drive operation. It will continue to do that and report on other operations during the rest of this year.

Mr G Robinson: Drink-driving is so serious, given the lives that have been lost on the roads. My opinion is that this initiative should carry on throughout the year.

Mr Starritt: The powers to introduce the roadside checkpoints came in with the Bill; they commenced in November. The timing was to allow the checkpoints to commence, because we know drink-driving can be a particular problem at that time of the year. Certainly, the PSNI will be intending to continue that through the year.

Mr G Robinson: That is reassuring.

Mrs Palmer: Thanks for the presentation. Is it accurate to say the new limits will not be implemented until we have accurate breathalyser units approved?

Mr Starritt: That is right.

The Chairperson (Mr Humphrey): Thank you very much for your presentation and your time. Apologies, again, for our struggle with the quorum. As you can see, half the Committee decided not to turn up today.