To be honest, I would not support any variation in the penalties. The research suggests that individuals who drink alcohol before they drive, even at the new lower limit that is being proposed, are three times more likely to die in a crash than they would be if they had not taken alcohol before they drove. There is sufficient evidence out there that suggests that drinking any alcohol impairs the ability to drive and to concentrate; it impairs reaction times. With the existing limit, people are six times more likely to die in a crash. I do not think that you would want to vary penalties depending on whether somebody was three times or six times more likely to kill themselves or somebody else. My view is that people who drink alcohol before driving are putting other people and themselves at risk and, therefore, the penalty needs to be such that it has a deterrent effect.
The studies that have been done across the countries that already have the limit that is being proposed have shown that all blood alcohol level counts tend to drop, and that there is a deterrent effect that means that the whole picture of drink driving changes. That deterrent effect is what is being considered. The purpose of the proposal is to improve safety, and I think that lowering the penalty would suggest that we were not taking that seriously.
You seem to have promoted the chief superintendent to chief constable.
It is not a defence for someone to say that it was yesterday that they were drinking. We appreciate that, but it is helpful to tease out the issue.
One issue that nobody has asked about is random breath tests—
12:15
My question is really on the same issue. I think—[Interruption.] Excuse me—[Interruption.]
Scotland has led the way in lowering the drink-driving limit, and it is only a matter of time before the rest of the UK falls into line. At Westminster, a hand-held saliva device for detecting drugs has already been developed. Drug driving is as important as drink driving. Currently, the field impairment test is pretty basic, and it has been argued that there are more drug drivers than drink drivers on the roads. I hope that the Parliament will see that the next step is to implement a roadside drug-testing kit to enable the police to tackle casualties on the roads.
John Finnie has covered most of my points. I support the reduction, because it will make things much clearer for people. The message is very simple: “Don’t drink and drive”. I am concerned that some of the questioning today might kind of encourage people to start trading off and tying themselves in knots. Can I have some assurance that the public education campaign that obviously needs to be run over the next month will be very clear?
The court already has powers to sentence. We keep being told that it is up to sheriffs to decide what the penalties are. I think that it would be a matter that is outwith our remit to comment on.
I have been teasing Elaine Murray a bit about heavy colds. If someone has taken medication that has alcohol in it—some medication for heavy colds and so on contains alcohol—as well as taking some alcohol, and they are tested and found to be over the limit, but only because of the additional alcohol in the medicine, will they have any kind of defence, if they can prove what happened? Would an examination of the blood sample permit a distinction to be made?
As other witnesses have said, it is not simply a matter for the police; other agencies are involved, such as the health service and—more important—so is society.
It has been suggested that the proposed change could result in up to 17 lives being saved. What is the burden for Police Scotland of 17 fatal collisions involving drunk drivers?
12:00
I was quite grateful for that. [Laughter.]
If that is the case, should there be an extensive education programme? I do not think that it is intended that a consequence will be that no one who is a driver should ever drink just in case they are over the limit the morning after. That is the extreme logical conclusion and that is clearly not the purpose of the legislation. Many people are absolutely law-abiding and would be appalled at the idea of driving when they are still feeling the effects of drink, but others have no regard whatever for such things and will be many times over the limit when they get into their cars. We want to ensure that we target the people who are a real danger, as well as educating the public and making sure that people do not fall into that category by accident.
Water, please. It is just water, by the way.
I think that it is mandatory that you lose your licence for 12 months.
I am about to be corrected by our resident advocate.
The amount of alcohol in mouthwashes and cold remedies is not substantial—certainly, when compared with the alcohol that people consciously drink when they want to get the effects of alcohol. If you are asking whether someone could be over the limit because they had been overenthusiastic with the Night Nurse, my assumption would be that they had been overenthusiastic with something else.
Yes. I have seen the main television advert, and it is clear. The message is: “Don’t do it—don’t risk it.” Peter Rice has given some clear advice, but the issue is how that is interpreted. If people start thinking about when they stopped drinking, how much they drank and how much they ate, that will potentially lead to their taking a risk. The simple message has to be that people have to balance it. People who are intelligent enough and can work it out for themselves will be able to find the information online—it is there. However, if we put out any messages saying that a certain amount is all right or telling people to leave so many hours after drinking, that could leave us open to all sorts of counter-challenges later.
I agree with everything that has been said, especially by Peter Rice, about the differences in legislation in European countries. I was trying to make that point. Those countries have moved on, and it is time that we moved on, as well. We can learn from one another.
Road casualties have an emotional and financial cost for families as well as a ripple effect on the national health service, emergency services, insurance companies and so on. It is a privilege to hold a driving licence; lots of people forget that and feel that it is a right. To protect that licence, people have to abide by the law. We welcome the fact that the drink-driving limit is being reduced to bring it into line with those in other European countries.
Is there a sense that one wider health benefit to society might come from a knock-on effect of people reducing their alcohol consumption generally?
I asked about that.
The next item of business is an evidence session on the reduction in the drink-driving limit proposed in the draft Road Traffic Act 1988 (Prescribed Limit) (Scotland) Regulations 2014. The session will inform next week’s evidence session on the draft regulations with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. I welcome to the meeting our panel of witnesses: Chief Superintendent Iain Murray of Police Scotland; Dr Peter Rice, chair of Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems; and Margaret Dekker, research secretary of Scotland’s Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers. We have had you here before, Mrs Dekker—I remember your campaigns.
We have submissions on the proposed limit and the Scottish Government’s original consultation, so we will go straight to questions. I will take Christian Allard first this time, then Elaine Murray and then Sandra White.
The exceptional circumstance—
We will see what we can do.
Unfortunately.
Most of us can see the case for the reduction; it will bring us into line with the rest of Europe. In fact, the UK stands out as having an exceptionally high limit. However, many of us do not know what it means for somebody who has been responsible the night before. When can they drive? If somebody has gone for a work night out on the Friday, at what stage on the next day can they go and do their Christmas shopping, for example? Is there a case for people being able to breathalyse themselves before they get in the car to make sure that they are not over the limit?
You are teasing me, now. If someone would not have been over the limit without the Night Nurse, would that be a defence, if they could prove it?
The burden is huge. Margaret Dekker mentioned the cost to society of £1.9 million per fatal collision. With regard to operational time, a minimum of four officers will spend a minimum of five days working solidly on that fatal collision. Slightly less time will be spent on serious collisions, but they still require a significant amount of time. We lose a working month, if you like, with each fatality. That adds up to a significant amount over a year. That amount of time refers just to those who are directly involved in investigation of the incident, but others are involved. There is an impact on the Crown Office and the courts—it rolls on and on.
As Margaret Dekker said, there is also an impact on the health service, from the ambulance teams who attend in the first place to the hospital staff—especially if the person does not die at the scene and requires a protracted period of care thereafter. There is a significant burden on Police Scotland in responding to fatal collisions. If I have teams of officers dealing with fatalities, that impacts on our ability to target other areas of risk taking on the roads.
Breathalysers are on the market.
No. My understanding is that it would not be a defence.
There is also trauma for the individuals who are involved in dealing with fatalities.
I think that there is. Anything that encourages people to reflect on their alcohol consumption is a good thing. Driving injuries and fatalities represent a pretty small proportion of alcohol-related fatalities in Scotland—it is certainly much less than 10 per cent and probably nearer 5 per cent. A lot of harm from alcohol has nothing to do with driving. Of course, a lot of interesting and productive things have happened to try to reduce that harm, particularly in Scotland. If the measure is part of a broader education campaign that encourages people to reflect, that will be a good thing.
One important point is that education on its own is a less powerful tool than we would often like to think it is. A combination of education and enforcement is a powerful shaper of behaviour. We see that with issues such as drink driving and wearing of seat belts. Although we would love to think that the answer is to explain things clearly to people and then they will change their attitudes, any marketer will say that the product also has to be easily accessible and easily bought. The combination of education and legislation, as we are talking about here, is the optimum mix.
Yes, there is an issue around exceptional circumstances, but the basic rule is that you lose your licence.
Does anyone else wish to comment on variation in penalties elsewhere in Europe?
Of the 434 detections that we made during the four weeks of last winter’s drink-drive campaign, 10 per cent were after 6 o’clock in the morning, so there is the risk of a slight increase. Before my colleagues respond, I should say that my simple message is that anyone who is going to be driving in the morning should not drink the night before.
You asked about it, but Dr Rice said that the public support random breath tests, which I found interesting. What is your data for that, Dr Rice?
Thank you very much, convener.
We have heard a lot in the media about people’s reaction to the proposed change to the limit. I agree with some of the comments that have been made regarding the penalties for the offence. It looks like a lot of people out there think that it might be very unfair that people who are caught on the lower side will get the same penalty as somebody who is caught on the higher side. In particular, I am somewhat worried that the hard-luck stories might, over time, reduce the level of public support. Do the witnesses think that that is a concern?
My point is about how we advise the public. I do not think that you are suggesting that drivers should never drink.
The question also touched on the level of public support for the measure. There are high levels of public support for drink-driving action—there are also majority levels of public support for a range of other alcohol measures, which sometimes surprises people.
In some countries, drink driving is considered to be more on the level of a parking ticket. It is one of the distinctive things about the United Kingdom that it is regarded here as a serious offence. I do not think that there is a substantial risk that lowering the limit will lead to the public regarding the offence as less serious. I agree with my colleague from Police Scotland that the degree of impairment at 50mg remains significant, and I think that the public realise that.
In your booklet, you should say, “Don’t rely on Night Nurse.”
I want to make it absolutely plain that I, and I think my colleagues who teased out the issues of drinking the day before, in no way support drink driving and absolutely support the limit. Obviously, if somebody is daft enough to be drinking late at night, they should not drive the next day, but there is a point at which someone does not know. It was fair to ask for guidance—not a get-out clause, because people still have to take responsibility for what they do—on the point at which people should err on the side of caution.
I just want to clarify that. It is fair to reflect that that was the point of the line of questioning that Margaret Mitchell, Elaine Murray and I followed. People will ask, “When do ah ken?” or, “Am I okay for tomorrow?” Obviously, at the extremes people will know that they are or are not okay, but there will be bits in the middle where people are not sure about the next day. That was an important issue to test. Dr Rice’s information was helpful, and more of it would be very helpful. The public can then use that information to decide and to make judgments and take responsibility for what they are doing. They need information about what is liable to take them into the danger zone the next morning. However, it is not a get-out clause.
I do not have data on that. I think that there was a YouGov poll, which I could look at. I was just basing my comment on my observations of the public, having been involved in debates on various aspects of alcohol. There is particularly solid public support for action on drink driving. I have heard the argument against random breath testing that it risks losing public support, but what I was saying was that my view, in summing all that up, is that the public support for action on drink driving is solid and I do not think that random breath testing would put it at risk. It would be a move in the right direction, and it has had long-term support from health bodies.
No. I am not suggesting that.
Yes—there is no doubt about that. There is cumulative trauma. Traffic officers deal daily with horrendous scenes. We have a duty of care for our officers. Over the past six to eight years, there have been an average of 200 deaths and 1,900 serious collisions a year. That is a lot of death, a lot of destruction and a lot of people injured unnecessarily on our roads.
Excuse me, but I am a wee bit lost. Are you suggesting a variation in the penalties? We do not have the power to do that.
But how will they know? That is what the general public want to know. After all, the situation is different for different people and depends on what they eat for their evening meal, their size, their metabolism and so on. When they get into their car the next morning, at whatever time that might be, how will they know whether they have waited long enough? I am not trying to make excuses, but I think that this is a genuine problem for the public. Of course, it is easy-peasy if all you have done is sit in the pub drinking, but if you had a meal the night before or shared a bottle of wine with a pal, how will you know that you will not be over the limit the next morning?
Are they? We had better not advertise them. We will just leave it to people to Google them.
I know that we do not have those powers.
You just have to plan ahead and make yourself aware that you cannot take the chance.
My point is about how people can be absolutely sure that, if they have been at a wedding or something and they get into the car the next day, they are not unintentionally going to be over the limit.
May I return to a point that I made earlier? The problem about driving the following day will crop up only when someone has drunk a pretty substantial amount the night before. In my professional life, I spend a lot of time speaking to people who drink very substantially. For someone who has had eight hours sleep, we are talking about consumption of in excess of a bottle of wine, half a bottle of spirits, six pints of average-strength beer—
The impact can even be later on the next day. We perhaps should say to people that, if they have had a big night out, they should not drive at all the next day.
The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland said that there should be a significant media campaign prior to any reduction coming into effect. The reduction is due to come into effect on 5 December. Is there really enough time to ensure that the public are fully aware of the consequences? I refer not just to the point that people should not drink if they are driving a car, which most of us understand, but the consequences for the following day even if people have been responsible the day before.
I want finally to hear it confirmed that Police Scotland is more than up for this change.
The most recent road safety information tracking study that was carried out on behalf of Road Safety Scotland shows that 95 per cent of those who were surveyed believe that drinking and driving over the limit is a very serious offence, and a further 4 per cent believe it to be serious. That means that 99 per cent of the people who were surveyed believe that drinking and driving over the limit is either very serious or serious. That demonstrates public support for the measures and the public’s perception of the issue.
I simply wanted to test the evidence base for that. I can see why intelligence-led breath tests might be acceptable to someone, but I do not know about random breath tests. I do not know the answer, which is why I am asking you. We have had the issue of policing using stop and search powers and alienating the public. I do not know; I just pose the question whether random breath tests might have a counterproductive effect.
Could the issue of exceptional circumstances be extended to other cases?
I would go along with the British Medical Association and say that people should not overindulge—everything in moderation. I do not think that being at a wedding allows people to ignore the law if they have drunk until they are tipsy.
I beg your pardon. He knows the law. How terrible of me!
But my question is: how do you know? Are you saying that no one should have anything the evening before? I am not trying to be difficult, but what about people who do these things innocently?
It is all about taking responsibility. If people have any doubt, they can get the bus or a taxi. There are other modes of transport besides cars to get people to where they are going.
We are. We support the change fully and we will be ready to implement it on the proposed date.
Yes—exactly.
I just wanted to make that plain. I hope that Alison McInnes did not get the impression that we were in any way being frivolous or trying to give people excuses.
I seek clarification on that. I thought that, with intelligence-led breath tests, if somebody reports to the police that a certain person was in the pub drinking and got into their car, the police can act on that.
All together, or separately? [Laughter.] I got a bit lost there.
We might end up doing it in another way. Is that an important part of the legislation? If we had the powers to do that, would the witnesses want us to use them?
It could be about the time at which the person drives the next day, or it could be the person’s metabolism. If we are going to do this, let us make sure that we are doing it for all the right reasons and that it is going to have the intended effect, which is to cut down on road-traffic accidents. We should not be putting valuable resources somewhere when they might be better deployed elsewhere. For example, what if the penalty of loss of licence for someone who is over the 50mg limit leads to a job loss? Are there other consequences that should be looked at and weighed up?
Yes, we can act if there is a reasonable cause to believe. There are three circumstances: the committing of a traffic offence, a collision or reasonable cause to believe that someone has alcohol in their system. As part of the festive season safety campaign, we do a large number of roadside checks. We have the power to stop vehicles to examine them and ensure that they are roadworthy. Particularly in the dark, there are always issues with things such as lighting. When we speak to drivers, we can form an opinion—from the smell of alcohol, their demeanour or whatever else—that allows us to meet that reasonable cause requirement.
Studies have been done on random breath testing, particularly in Australia. Some of the data gathering has questionable elements, but most of the studies have shown a move towards support for random breath testing. Last year, we engaged with the University of Glasgow on a procedural justice programme on the explanation of what we are doing. That work is still not concluded, as follow-up work is on-going. It was about how we approach people and speak to them.
We have found a lot of support. There is an awareness that it is time for the Christmas drink-driving campaign, because we have been doing it for so long now. We find, from having done it at the coalface at 2 in the morning, that most people are supportive when we ask whether they mind providing a specimen. Some of the campaigns focused on breathalysing as many people as were willing, so that we could get that dramatic statistical perspective. I have never found anybody to refuse or decline to take a breathalyser test when offered the opportunity. When there is a need to do it, we can do it, and we can offer people the opportunity.
I agree with Margaret Dekker that the courts already have the power to take into account the person’s circumstances when making a determination. I think that there is sufficient scope in the system at the moment.
I understand the point, but it is all about prioritising certain aspects, such as when you drink or do not drink, when you need to drink, and the importance of drinking in your life so that you can decide what you do and when you do it. I am sure that Peter Rice will be able to throw more light on that, but the simple message that we have always put across is: do not risk it. We are talking not just about a legal limit but about the concept of impairment itself. The fact is that your ability to drive could be impaired, and you have to be aware of that. You might be feeling fine, but the fact is that—
No. It is “or”, not “and”. I make the point that if people are drinking at that level they are running risks other than in relation to driving. In this country there are a considerable number of deaths and injuries of intoxicated pedestrians. In some estimates, the number of intoxicated people who are killed or seriously injured by sober drivers exceeds the number of people who are killed or seriously injured by drink drivers.
If someone turns up at their local accident and emergency department with a significant injury or trauma sustained because they were intoxicated, the staff do not say, “Fine, at least you weren’t driving”; there is a significant injury that has to be dealt with. I make the point that the risk of being over the limit the morning after will apply to people who take considerable risks that are not related to driving, because of the amount that they drink. Many people take such risks and get away with it, but many people do not get away with it. We need to see the issue in that context.
I did not mean to imply that, and I apologise if you took it in that way.
There are not, in some parts of the world.
Thank you very much.
I think that you did, actually.
That clarifies the position. We have gone into that.
That is not the point. We admit that there would be impairment, but the question is how we know whether we are over the current limit, let alone a lower limit. I wonder whether Dr Rice can assist in giving the public some guidance.
Margaret Mitchell used the term “burden” in a question. Dr Rice eloquently explained the limits, but I think that people will more readily understand your comment about not drinking the night before. Do you get frustrated by all the “What if?” questions that are put to police officers?
I do not think that that power is used very often. Exceptional circumstances might be pled quite often but I do not think that such pleading is successful very often.
As I said, a driving licence is a privilege, and to protect that licence people have to abide by the law. We are only too aware of the devastating consequences of loss of life and the financial impact that that can have on people’s families. There is a balance to be struck. Lowering the drink-driving limit to 50mg per 100ml of blood is not unreasonable. It has already been proved in other European countries that it brings down the number of road casualties that are caused by drink driving. To my mind, it is only a start to eradicating the scourge of drink driving in Scotland.
You are speaking to a rural MSP.
I do not think it is an issue of whether we are up for it; we are looking at the difficulties for the public. I do not dissent from what John Finnie has said. Obviously, the effect on the people involved is appalling. We are just testing the impact on the public, because you must take them with you in enforcement. I call Sandra White, to be followed by Roderick Campbell.
What is the resource burden on Police Scotland in terms of the anticipated increase in convictions?
I can. It is an important question. Although any response can be couched in caveats about individual variability and so on, people need some relatively firm guidelines.
In your scenario of sharing a bottle of wine with a meal, if you start drinking that wine with your meal at 8 pm, your blood alcohol level will get back to zero at about 2 am the following day. I think that that provides some indication. If you drink more heavily than that—and this is the important point—your metabolising of alcohol will not speed up. Your alcohol metabolism system is like a shop with one checkout; it can go at only one speed. If you drink more heavily, there are no additional—
I think it is about clarity.
What about a bike, then?
To be honest, I am very much with Margaret Mitchell, in that I think that it is about personal responsibility. Someone dies on the roads of Scotland every two days, and that is unacceptable. People engage in all sorts of risk-taking behaviour, including drink and drug driving. There is an attitude that leads people to say, “It was an accident and I didn’t mean it”, but people voluntarily put themselves at risk by getting behind the wheel or using the road in some other way, and our duty to each other and to ourselves is paramount.
I have little sympathy with the “I didn’t know” argument; people have to know and they have to take responsibility. If we are at the stage at which people cannot not have a drink the night before, that is a sad indictment of our society. A person must make a decision, if they are driving in the morning. People must decide who is driving and who is not driving and they must balance their lives accordingly. That is my personal view.
Road safety and casualty reduction is a huge responsibility for us all. It is all about risk taking and how we interact with each other. We have a duty to ourselves and to others in the context of how we approach all aspects of use of the road.
Well, I apologise. One of the points about the 80mg limit is that people have tied themselves in knots thinking that it is okay to drive because they have done certain things, but they have—unintentionally, in their minds—been drink driving and have been caught out. The lower limit will make it much clearer that, actually, there is no point in trying to decide about that.
Thank you, convener. It is just past 12, so I say good afternoon.
We know that one in nine deaths on the road and many more injuries from collisions are caused by drivers who are over the limit. I want to put what some people have been saying into perspective. I recollect that many years ago when there was not what you might call a limit, there was carnage caused by people drink driving. Drivers have to take responsibility.
I agree with what Margaret Dekker said about educating drivers. I always think that in the hands of someone who has had a drink a car is a lethal weapon. Perhaps people should learn about their responsibilities in that regard.
I assume that education campaigns will be run on the television and so on. When the legislation comes into force, we will have a different drink-driving limit to the rest of the UK. How is that going to be addressed? Will there be advertising down south or as people come over the border?
I have one final point for Chief Superintendent Murray. Some people might think that the measure is an extra tool in the armoury, but there is nothing in your existing powers that inhibits your ability to rigorously enforce the legislation, is there?
As I understand it, there will be national elements to the campaign in the media, including the broadcast media. It is being considered whether to extend the campaign to other modes of transport to make people think about whether they are having a drink on the train or a drink in the airport. That is being included in our consideration of how we engage with the operating companies and those who provide services. We are considering whether to place adverts strategically at motorway services, so that drivers will be aware of the change as they head north or south. That is all being considered as part of the campaign. A number of agencies are involved. There will be a heavy reliance on social media to make sure that the message is out there. All the traditional media, which I am more acquainted with, as well as the new-fangled stuff, will be used to make sure that we catch as many people as possible. An extensive campaign is planned; there will be significant investment.
Do you have a horse, Elaine?
We are still considering that. We will do some survey work over the next few weeks. Some of the data is slightly hard to come by just now.
We estimate that we are likely to catch around a third more drink drivers than we do at the moment in the initial phase. As I said, research shows that drink driving and alcohol counts across the board tend to drop following the introduction of lower limits. My hope, therefore, would be that the public would learn. A quite significant campaign will be ratcheted up through November into December to make people aware of the implications. We have been doing that through the drink-drive initiatives of last winter and summer. When we breathalyse people who are over the proposed limit but under the current limit, we make them aware of the situation.
The worst-case scenario could be that as many as a third more drivers will be caught, but I would like to think that it will be less than that.
I am just trying to think that through, but go on.
We are not disputing the level, and certainly it gets a person nowhere to tell the court that they might lose their job. The court hears that all the time. However, we are talking about people’s knowledge.
The biggest issue is what happens the day or evening before. Dr Rice’s information was very helpful; perhaps you should produce a wee booklet to give us an idea. I know that there are differences and people cannot rely on the information, but the public need guidance about when they should say to themselves, “I will err on the side of caution tonight”, and decide that two glasses are sufficient. That kind of thing is helpful to people who might not know whether they are liable to break the law. They certainly would not want to break the law; that is the point that we are trying to get at.
I think that most of the questions will be on this issue. Am I correct?
No. We can stop vehicles travelling on the road at any time. At that point, we can speak to drivers, which allows us to form opinions. There are powers that allow us to do things from that point onwards.
No.
So you do not have to have cause to stop someone—there does not have to be a brake light out or something.
Is there not a significant chance that there would be more convictions of people who drive the morning after they have been drinking? After the chief constable has answered that, the rest of the panel could say what advice they could give people who want to ensure that they are not over the limit the morning after.
If it takes you two minutes to put people through a checkout and someone comes into your shop every minute, you are going to end up with a long queue. Some shops will be able to call people through from the back to open another checkout, but your liver is not like that. It does not speed up. It chugs away at about 10ml or a standard unit an hour and nothing—not coffee, not sleep, not a shower, not exercise, not eating a full Scottish breakfast—will speed that up or make any difference.
Yes.
In other parts of Europe, it is not unusual to have people driving across borders to countries where there are different limits. Systems have developed in other places, so there might be some benefit from international learning. It is not a great problem that we hear about from my colleagues in other countries. There are examples where similar policies have worked without any great difficulty.
She does not have a horse any more. There we are.
Who is next on my list? It is Elaine Murray.
What happened to Irn Bru and a bacon roll?
We have separate legislation for that, but anybody driving on the road can be stopped by the police at any time.
I will bear that in mind.
That completes the evidence. I thank our witnesses very much indeed.
We now move into private session.
12:18 Meeting continued in private until 12:30.
Those things have good marketers, but whatever magical properties people endow Irn Bru, bacon rolls or square sausage with, that is all they are. Basically, time is the only thing that clears alcohol from your system and, as I have said, an individual who started to drink a half bottle of wine at 8 pm would reach zero blood alcohol in the early morning. In fact, they might well wake up at pretty much the same time because that was happening to them.
I fully agree with the chief superintendent that the morning after thing is not an unintended consequence. It is intended, because people whose blood alcohol content is at such a level are significantly impaired and they are doing a risky thing. They would need to have been drinking fairly heavily or have had a very short sleep to run into that problem, but they still need to be aware of the rate of metabolism and calculate accordingly.
11:45
The chief superintendent rightly says that it is about impairment. Somebody who has a heavy cold is impaired and should not drive. I believe that a heavy cold can have the same effect on somebody’s ability to react as being over the current limit can have, but nobody thinks that they had better not drive because they have a cold. In fact, the party whips would take a dim view of us not coming to work because of a heavy cold.
There are other issues about impairment that people should be aware of but are not.
On the point that I made about targeting and the one that you just made about impairment, bear in mind the fact that we stop the vast majority of vehicles that we stop for a reason. It is because an offence has been committed, there has been some risk-taking behaviour or because something about the person’s manner of driving is drawing attention to them.
If we stop people the morning after, the likelihood is that they will have brought themselves to our attention. We are not setting up road checks on the outskirts of housing estates at 6 o’clock in the morning to check people who are going to their work. We find people who are already speeding or who are doing something else wrong—for example, there might be something in the way that they are overtaking. It is about anything that draws attention to them; if there is an element of risky behaviour, that is where we start to pick up impairment through drink.
Those who behave responsibly, take a considered approach the night before, consider in the morning when they drive and drive according to the law will not have to worry about coming to the attention of the police. As Margaret Dekker said, it is about taking responsibility; it is about people being aware of what they are doing and how they are doing it.
Someone might be doing that and still be over the limit, might they not? Therefore, that is not the point. The point is whether or not they are impaired.
For me, it comes back to the point that they are putting themselves and others at risk because of that impairment. If a person is over the new proposed limit when they drive in the morning, there will be a degree of impairment whether they feel it or not.
My point concerns education and people being aware of when they are impaired, and not necessarily the police having noticed that they are impaired when driving. People need to be aware that certain things, such as having a bit of alcohol in their blood or having a heavy cold, mean that they should not drive. They need to be educated to know that they are impaired under those circumstances.
Let us keep to the draft regulations, which are not about having a heavy cold.
No, but it is an analogy.
I know what an analogy is.
A marketing campaign is about to kick in. Obviously, we need to tell the public when the reduction is going to happen, and it is vital that we get through the parliamentary process so that the marketing can kick in. There will be television advertising and all sorts of other marketing—all sorts of media stuff is waiting to kick in as soon as there is a green light. We are doing live education when we stop motorists; we are making them aware of the reduction.
There will be education. The question is whether the committee thinks that the time will be enough. That is for the committee to decide, but a significant amount of money is being spent through the safer Scotland initiative and Road Safety Scotland to make it happen.
Good afternoon, panel. Does anyone think that we are missing a trick by not going for restrictions on younger drivers and random breath tests?
That is a consideration. I think that those things were perceived previously as a step too far, from the point of view of public support and also perhaps in respect of mixed messages. There is certainly evidence to suggest that there is a greater risk with younger drivers in respect of their capacity, tolerance and maturity, never mind their driving skills. Some countries have therefore looked at lower limits.
I would personally have a difficulty if we were to say, “Well done. You’ve held your licence for two years. Now you can drink more.” I think that Margaret Dekker hinted at the idea of continuing to drive down the limit. Scandinavian countries are shocked that we are only now coming down to 50mg and that it has taken us so long to get there. I think that they are already sitting at a limit of 20mg or 30mg.
Everybody is affected by the reality and the argument around impact and impairment, but young people are disproportionately affected. That is my understanding, although I am sure that Peter Rice can again add more to that.
Yes. I think that the British Medical Association and the medical royal colleges would fully support both things that have been mentioned. I think that they would support a graduated structure with lower limits for younger drivers simply on the basis of the demographics of the accidents that we see, including the fatalities, which are weighted very much towards younger people. Although there is often talk about the younger generation being better with drink driving than older people are, the numbers in respect of the profile of serious accidents and fatalities really do not bear that out.
Similarly, the level of public support and understanding of the importance of the issue of drink driving is such that I think that the general public would accept random breath testing. It has already been said that the UK has made a great deal of progress in reducing harm from drink driving but, compared with other countries, we still have a relatively low level of testing. I think that 15 per cent of French drivers are tested every year, but the numbers who are tested in the UK are in single figures.
Although other countries have much to learn from us about the various ways that drink driving has been approached, the testing-rate league is one league that we are not at the top of. Therefore, I think that you would find that the health bodies would support a process of random breath testing.
To make any law effective, it has to be seen to be enforced. The penalties and enforcement must be seen to outweigh the risk of offending. In that context, we would support random breath testing and a lower limit for professional drivers such as taxi drivers, school bus drivers and anyone who drives in a care capacity. We would support an even lower limit of 20mg for those drivers.
I do not know whether the police can answer this question, but is it ever reflected in the sentencing of people who have been found to have driven over the limit that they are a professional or commercial driver? I am not sure whether the courts take a harder view of that.
I am sorry, but I cannot comment on that. I am not aware of whether that happens.
I wonder whether that is currently reflected in sentencing. I do not know.