Justice 2 Committee, 24 Apr 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 24, 2001

Official Report 282KB pdf

---

Drugs and Driving

I refer members to paper J2/01/7/3, which suggests how we could progress our initial inquiry. A decision must be made. I asked the clerks to write a note to remind us where our remit lies, given that the subject matter of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is reserved. We must ensure that our remit allows us to proceed in the direction in which we choose to go.

The background note suggests that the committee might like to hear from some other witnesses. Members will recall from our last meeting that one witness in particular felt very strongly that he should be called to give evidence. We should hear from him and from a few more witnesses before we decide which direction to take. Do we agree to take evidence from John Oliver from the University of Strathclyde? He has provided a written submission, but it would be useful to hear oral evidence, too. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

It would be useful to hear from the Scottish Drugs Forum. The paper lists several organisations, all of which it would be useful to hear from. Do members agree that we should try to find a slot in which to hear evidence from those witnesses?

We could hear from three witnesses in one meeting: Mr Oliver; the Scottish Drugs Forum; and the Scottish advisory committee on drug misuse.

That would be sensible. If we hear evidence from the witnesses, that might give us a better idea of where we want to go—whether we want to draw up a report or make recommendations.

Members indicated agreement.

I understand the difficulties that are involved but, at some point, we will have to address the business of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Why is the subject matter of the Road Traffic Act 1988 reserved?

It just is—that is a fact.

There is an opportunity to state a different crime on different sides of the border.

We are not going to have a discussion on that today. I am simply asking members whether we want to proceed. There is still scope for us to act on the issue of drug driving. Not much work has been done on the subject, so it would be useful for us to continue the inquiry. We have probably heard enough research evidence, but perhaps we could hear more on the road safety side.

My point is that if we follow that through and come up with some ideas or suggestions for prototypes or experiments, we might not be able to carry them out because the subject matter of the Road Traffic Act 1988 would still be reserved. That might be an unnecessary barrier to progress. I would not have thought that the Road Traffic Act 1998 is an act on which this great and glorious union rests. I am giving notice that at some point in the future I might say "Just give us road traffic as well, and we won't do anything stupid".

That is up to you. I suggest that we take the evidence as we have agreed. I am sure that there is something useful that we can do after that.