Drink-driving Limit
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S3M-1000, in the name of Dave Thompson, on making Scotland's roads safer by reducing the drink-driving limit. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the British Medical Association's (BMA) Christmas card campaign calling for a reduction in the drink driving limit; notes that there is clear evidence that shows that drivers who exceed 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood are significantly impaired; further notes with regret that in the Highlands and Islands there are 27% more accidents caused by drunk drivers than the national average; joins the BMA in considering that more pressure should be exerted on the UK Government to lower the drink driving limit from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg; supports the implementation of random testing, which would undoubtedly act as a further deterrent to drink driving, and notes that these measures will make Scotland's roads safer and could save as many as 65 lives a year on UK roads.
I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Justice's announcement that he has written to the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, asking her to reduce the drink-driving limit for the UK from 80mg to 50mg per 100ml of blood and to introduce random breath-testing. Both of those measures are necessary if we are to cut the death toll on our roads. I just hope that cabinet secretary MacAskill does not have to wait three months only to receive a negative reply from Ruth Kelly, as I had to do last year.
Last August, Northern Constabulary ran a campaign to crack down on drink-driving, and in two weeks it caught more than two dozen drink-drivers. As I examined the matter further, I found that throughout Scotland one in six road deaths is caused by drink-driving, and that in the Highlands and Islands we suffer from a drink-driving rate that is 27 per cent higher than the national average. That is what spurred me on to start my campaign. I believe that a reduction to 50mg, coupled with the introduction of random breath-testing, would send a strong message that drink-driving is not acceptable.
There is a huge cost to drink-driving—on average, each road death costs the Scottish taxpayer an estimated £1.4 million, which is money that could be far better spent on other things. Injuries add to that, and the emotional burden takes an even greater toll. If, by reducing the drink-driving limit, we were to save just one person from an untimely death, one family from untold grief, and one community from undue suffering, it would be worth it.
A reduction in the limit from 80mg to 50mg has wide support in Scotland, from prominent people such as Cardinal Keith O'Brien and from organisations such as the Automobile Association; the British Medical Association; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents; the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland; the Scottish Police Federation; a number of councils; and the west of Scotland road safety forum, which incorporates all 12 councils in the west of Scotland and a number of other bodies. There is huge support in Scotland for change and for a reduction in our drink-driving limit.
On top of that, and for more than six years, the European Commission has lobbied the United Kingdom Government to reduce the limit. The UK is now one of only four European Union countries with an 80mg limit—the other three are Ireland, Luxembourg and Malta. Despite the evidence of massive support in Scotland for a reduction in the limit, Westminster's response to date on this reserved issue has been to twiddle its thumbs and mumble excuses. The UK Government cites a need for better enforcement before it will consider a change in the law and, despite acknowledging the broad support for a lower limit, it ignores the will of the people and takes a pass on the issue.
Why should drivers who would be prosecuted in 23 other European countries be deemed safe enough for Scotland's streets? According to the Institute of Alcohol Studies, 23 per cent of road deaths in 2004 involved alcohol levels over 50mg, and nearly one in 10 of those deaths occurred when the driver had an alcohol level of between 50mg and 79mg. Above 50mg, drivers face decreased alertness, slower reactions and impaired co-ordination. The UK Government's research paper for the Road Safety Bill in 2006 found that
"at levels between 50mg and 80mg an average driver is around 2 or 2.5 times as likely to be involved in an accident."
The figure is even worse for young or inexperienced drivers, whose risk may be increased fivefold. We all know of the many accidents in recent times that have involved young drivers, especially on country roads.
Having published its own research, the Westminster Government either did not read it or did not like it, because it did not implement a reduced limit. Our duty is never to hide behind a wall of stubbornness, and never to accept looser regulations simply because it has always been that way. The science has spoken, and we have its support. Drink-drivers with a level between 50mg and 79mg are threatening our roads, our families and our communities. We cannot let that continue.
Des Browne, the Secretary of State for Scotland, said recently:
"For those who want to make the argument about halving the drink-driving limit, there will be an opportunity for them to do that, and if that's the right thing to do, then it should be the right thing across the UK."
He is absolutely right, but the Labour debate has been going on for 10 years. How long does Des Browne want?
The debate in Scotland has come to a conclusion. We want a reduced drink-driving limit, and if Labour will not act for the UK, it should at least act for Scotland, with a pilot scheme to test the success of a reduced limit. If Westminster will not do that, it must give us the power to act. Either way, it needs to step up to the plate. We have endured the delays and listened to its double-speak. How many more deaths must we endure before Westminster acts? At present, it is driving the wrong way down a one-way street. People are being killed. If Westminster does not turn, we must take the wheel.
I thank Dave Thompson for lodging the motion for debate. We should be deeply concerned about the levels of drink-driving throughout the country. In 2005, 30 people were killed and there were 990 casualties from drink-driving related accidents in Scotland. Figures for the four-week campaign to tackle drink-driving and drug-driving at Christmas, which was backed by ACPOS, show that 839 drivers were arrested during the period for numerous drink-driving or drug-driving offences throughout the eight police force areas. That figure is unacceptably high and represents only a small reduction from the previous year—by 69 from 908—and it demonstrates that there is no room for complacency.
We know that drink-driving is dangerous and socially unacceptable, but a percentage of men and women continue to ignore the risks that are associated with that dangerous course of action. Although there has been a general downward trend in the number of drink-driving related accidents of all severities, that trend has not been reflected in the number of fatalities, which remains the same as it was 10 years ago.
Liberal Democrats believe that reducing the drink-driving limit will save lives and we support the British Medical Association's campaign to lower the limit to 50mg. There is clear evidence that such a change will reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries that are caused by drink-driving. Drivers' reaction times and motoring skills deteriorate after even a small amount of alcohol. Drinking and driving is a poisonous cocktail. Drinking can give drivers a false sense of confidence, but it impairs their abilities significantly in a number of ways, including slower reaction times, poorer judgment of speed, time and distance, increased thinking and stopping distances, and poorer co-ordination.
Why has the UK persisted in sticking to a limit that was set in 1965? The system needs to be overhauled. There is much that we can learn from our European neighbours on the matter. Many people confess to being confused about the limit and how it relates to the stronger alcohol that is consumed nowadays. Often, people still think that one unit of alcohol equals one glass, but that is no longer the case. With the trend for much stronger wine, and with wine being sold in larger glasses, one glass can push a person over the limit. With a reduced limit, one pub measure of alcohol is all that would be allowed.
As people can be affected differently depending on their body weight and when they have eaten, the safest option will always be not to drink and drive. However, replacing the current limit of 80mg with a 50mg limit is a simple and effective step that will be easy for most people to understand. As Mr Thompson said, the 50mg level is the norm in 23 European countries.
I am concerned by the recent statistics that show that, although women still represent only a small percentage of the overall figures, the number of women who are convicted of drink-driving offences is rising. In the light of that, we need a review of the traditional anti-drink-driving campaigns. Targeted educational campaigns and better labelling on alcohol would also help to reverse that worrying trend.
Changing the permissible alcohol level is only one part of the story. We also need proper consistent enforcement and prosecution, so adequate police resources should be available to enforce any new limit. Without compromising judicial discretion, we should look to our courts for more consistency in sentencing for drink-driving offences.
Co-operative working is the key to reducing the drink-driving limit. As the issue is reserved, it is critical that the Administrations at Holyrood and Westminster work together. I urge the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to work closely with his counterparts at Westminster to secure action on the matter.
I am happy to speak in this afternoon's debate. I acknowledge Dave Thompson's efforts in securing the debate and the concerns that he has highlighted about the above-average number of accidents caused by drunk drivers in the Highlands and Islands. Drink-driving is completely unacceptable, and we must do all that we can to make Scotland's roads safer.
Our current drink-driving limit has been in force since 1966, and a number of bodies have recently suggested that it is time to review the limit, with persuasive arguments having been presented by the BMA. Many European countries have lower limits—we should consider following their example. I welcome the debate on the issue and the on-going debate across the United Kingdom, but the matter is reserved and—to reflect Des Browne's comments—I feel that if it is right to lower the limit here, it is right to do so throughout the UK. There are real concerns that a difference in the limit in Scotland from the rest of the UK may cause confusion among drivers and not lead to the necessary clarity around the law.
I regret to say that, like the Highlands, Fife has a worrying record of serious road accidents, although the issue is wider than drink-driving. Road safety more generally is a serious issue across the country. Only today, we have heard of an accident in Fife that claimed the lives of two men. My deep condolences go out to their friends and families.
When I was elected last May, I was shocked by the number of deaths of young drivers and passengers in Fife, where nine people died in road accidents last year, many of whom were young people. I must say that alcohol was not involved in the majority of the accidents: irresponsible driving, combined with rural roads and bends on high-speed roads were the main factors.
Much work is being done in Fife by the police to try to educate young drivers and make them aware of the risks and reality of their actions. Fife Constabulary reports that in Fife someone is seriously injured or killed in a road accident every second day. One quarter of convictions for causing death by dangerous driving are for drivers under 20, even though the age group represents just 3 per cent of all drivers.
Safe drive stay alive is a successful project in Fife, sponsored by Diageo, which works with senior pupils and college students to consider a range of issues that face new drivers and emphasises the dangers of drink-driving. Around 1,500 young people take part every year. The project's content reflects the findings of statistical evidence, feedback from emergency service personnel and consultation of education officers and road users. It has adopted an innovative and hard-hitting approach. Contributions from the parents of road-accident victims and victims themselves ensure that it is an experience that the young people who attend do not forget.
The House of Commons Transport Select Committee report on novice drivers published last summer stated that there is a case for reducing the limit to zero for novice drivers. The Department for Transport has given a commitment to consider the option as part of a wider consultation on the alcohol limit. I welcome that response.
I want to touch briefly on the issue of people driving when under the influence of drugs. The problem affects young people as passengers and drivers, when other transport options may not be available, when they feel that the roads are quiet and when there is a feeling that not much risk is being taken. We need to ensure that a strategy that addresses drink-driving also recognises the reality that there are some people who would not dream of drinking and driving but who take a different approach to drug taking. We need to ensure that we address that.
There is an additional challenge in raising awareness of the unacceptable nature of drink-driving. A recent report on Polish migrants in Fife highlighted the clear benefits that they bring to the economy as well as the challenges that they face in accessing services. However, Tayside Police has recently expressed concerns that migrant workers in particular do not stick to the alcohol limit. That may seem contradictory as many of the countries that the workers come from have lower limits than the UK. It appears to be difficult to identify the reasons, but it is possible that the limits are not so well enforced in some European countries. There is an additional challenge in ensuring that we reach everyone through appropriate and relevant campaigns.
Drink-driving and drug-driving are very important. Thousands of accidents each year could be prevented if we work to reduce the number of people who drive when under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The Scottish Government must focus its efforts to tackle drink-driving through on-going publicity and enforcement campaigns that are targeted at all drivers. I hope that the consultation throughout the UK looks at all appropriate ways to tackle drink-driving.
I congratulate Mr Thompson on bringing the debate to the chamber. I can well understand why he has done so as a member for the Highlands and Islands. As we all know, the Highlands are a particularly beautiful part of the world, with some very attractive communities and some very nice people. The disadvantage is remoteness. It is often impossible to get anywhere by public transport and, as such, people use their cars to a much greater extent than they would do in Glasgow or Edinburgh. There are inevitably temptations to drink on social occasions in the Highlands, which is unfortunate. There is tangible evidence of that in the casualty departments of Raigmore hospital and other hospitals.
We must consider the issue of drink-driving realistically. It is not the problem that it was 20 years ago, but we must acknowledge that it is still a serious problem, and that there is an arguable case for reconsidering the drink-driving limit. I require to be convinced that the technology is in force to ensure that there would be no difficulties if the limit was set at a low level and that some substances other than alcohol would not show up in people's bloodstreams so that they could be wrongly convicted. Furthermore, the drink-driving limit must be set on a UK-wide basis. We could not have different limits in Gretna and Carlisle, for example. That would make a nonsense of the existing law. I fully acknowledge Mr Thompson's sincerity and the validity of his view, but there has again been a little indication that his proposal is another rod with which to beat the back of the Westminster Government.
If there is a good case for reducing the drink-driving limit in Scotland and a real will to act here, how can we get movement at Westminster if people there are just digging in their heels? Would a pilot scheme for the whole UK in Scotland be a good idea?
As I said, the case is arguable. If the Westminster Government does not move on the issue, it will become a political matter. I am sure that Mr Thompson, as a member of the Scottish National Party, campaigns enthusiastically for Scottish independence. If that comes, the problem that we are discussing would be removed, although, of course, many other problems would arise.
I want to raise another issue, which Claire Baker briefly highlighted. Impaired driving as a result of drinking alcohol is a real issue in the more remote areas, but we live in an era in which much impaired driving is the result of people taking drugs, as Ms Baker said. In my advanced years, I do not often go clubbing in Glasgow city centre, but on the odd occasion when I do so, there is clear evidence that people are taking recreational drugs. I would be willing to bet that a considerable number of vehicles that leave Glasgow city centre after 2 o'clock on a Friday or Saturday morning contain people who are not fit to drive, although that might be apocryphal. It is easy for them to escape detection because, at the moment, the technology does not exist that would enable the police to carry out accurate and reasonably quick tests on them. I have written to the cabinet secretary about that. The matter is in the hands of the Home Office. The technology and appropriate apparatuses need to become available as soon as possible so that the police can take the appropriate enforcement action.
I recognise that Mr Thompson has an arguable case. However, Scotland should not go it alone in reducing its drink-driving limit. In the times ahead, I am willing to listen to anything else that he says on the subject, which he obviously regards as serious.
The debate has been consensual, despite Mr Aitken's comments on the constitution. Like other members, I pay tribute to Dave Thompson for securing the debate, in which we have had the opportunity to participate and make clear our views—which seem to be uniform—on the drink-driving problems that we face. Members have welcomed the proposal to reduce the drink-driving limit. I also pay tribute to Dave Thompson's tireless campaigning on the matter. He has sought to ensure that he brings together an array of issues, and he pointed out, correctly, that the position that he has articulated has also been articulated by organisations such as the British Medical Association, ACPOS and the Scottish Police Federation. Because of that, as I said, we owe him a great deal of gratitude.
As Mr Thompson, Alison McInnes and Claire Baker mentioned, the legislation that deals with drink-driving is significantly out of date. It is many years since I ceased practising, but I recall section 6 cases relating to those who had been caught driving under the influence of alcohol. Since then, things have moved on in a variety of ways—the state of roads, the speed of vehicles and an array of other matters—and the issue must be addressed.
The problem of migrant workers drink-driving, for which there is no clear and simple reason, is something that I have faced in my constituency. We are liaising with the police north and south of the border on the reasons for that. As Claire Baker mentioned, the issue could doubtless be one of enforcement. Anecdotally, however, I have been told that the problem relates to the alcohol limit for drivers—the limit in Poland is lower, and some Poles who come here seem to think that the higher limit here is the green light for go. That is no excuse for them consuming enough alcohol to put them above the 80mg limit. There is anecdotal evidence—in some cases, but not all—that those people think that, because the limit is higher here, they can indulge themselves. That is certainly not the case.
The problem arises not simply among migrant workers, who contribute a great deal to our economy, but among our own people—in particular, those who exceed the limit through ignorance. That is no defence, as the law has always said. There is also a recalcitrant minority who seem to think that the law does not apply to them and who endanger not only themselves but, tragically, others.
In response to Bill Aitken, I say that the Government would prefer matters to be dealt with on a pan-UK basis. That is why we have been in communication from an early juncture with both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport. We want them to move. However, if they do not do so and if it is felt that Scotland has to move—which is the position of the British Medical Association, ACPOS and others, as Dave Thompson correctly pointed out—it would be negligent for us not to do so. I have discussed the proposal with chief constables in Scotland. They would prefer matters to be dealt with on a pan-UK basis, but they see no impediment to having different limits north and south of the border if that is the only way of addressing the issue. I hope that that does not come about, but if it does it will at least address road safety in Scotland.
The campaign is part of a wider Government agenda regarding Scotland's relationship with alcohol. The Government has made it clear that we cannot go on as we are. It is not simply about danger on the roads; it is about the effect on our health service, the impact on our criminal justice system and people's inability to maintain their involvement in the labour market—they phone up on Monday with the excuse that they have a stomach bug although everybody, including their employer, knows that they have been on the batter all weekend. The cost of alcohol abuse is damaging us in Scotland and we must tackle it.
As others have said, there is a significant problem in the fact that the 80mg limit was set back in the 1960s, before some members were even born. To put that in perspective, the limit was introduced in the year in which Celtic became the first UK team to win the European cup. That shows just how much time has passed. Scotland and the rest of the UK are very different now from how they were when the limit was set. Our laws have evolved and adapted over the past 40 years to reflect the changes in society on a multitude of matters, and it appears to us that the current drink-driving limit is a conspicuous exception to that. Some new laws have had to be passed as a result of changes in society, to deal with the internet and mobile communications. Equally, some existing laws have had to be reviewed and some are undergoing review. It therefore appears to be an apposite time to reconsider how we should address drink-driving.
Scottish Government research that was published today found that, although there has been a reduction in the level of drink-driving, 5 per cent of people who were surveyed thought that they had driven while over the limit in the past 12 months. The research recommends a reduction in the drink-driving limit to a less ambiguous level, as there is still confusion about how drinks and units of alcohol relate to the legal limits. Some of the confusion is not simply down to individuals. Glasses of wine may now contain substantial volumes, which people often do not expect to be served. Beer that is sold in public houses and elsewhere often has a higher alcohol by volume percentage than it did in the past, and consuming two pints of one brand rather than another can put someone over the limit.
In addition, cars are faster and roads are busier than they were in the past, and those factors make drink-driving significantly more dangerous now. That is why, in 2005, an estimated 30 people in Scotland were killed and 170 were seriously injured in alcohol-related road accidents. Sadly, around one in nine road deaths in Scotland occurs in an alcohol-related incident. Research indicates clearly that the numbers are coming down, but too many people are still dying or being seriously hurt on our roads. Lowering the drink-driving limit would reduce the number of deaths and injuries, and it would reduce confusion and ambiguity about what the limit is.
Lowering the limit would not just bring us up to date chronologically; it would bring us into line with most of the rest of Europe. During the past 10 years, several European countries, including France, Germany, Spain and Denmark, have reduced their drink-driving limit to 50mg. Research has shown that the countries with the most success in tackling drink-driving are those that have reduced the limit to below 80mg.
Figures produced by the Department for Transport estimate that such a measure could prevent 50 deaths and 250 serious injuries. Several members mentioned that. The list of organisations that support the idea is substantial, as Dave Thompson pointed out. That is why I have written to the Secretary of State for Transport, calling on the UK Government to lower the drink-driving limit to 50mg. I have also called for the introduction of police powers to randomly breath-test drivers at the roadside. Research indicates that a hard core is causing the problem in the main, although others are also involved. The risk of being caught is a deterrent and random breath-tests are a significant aspect of that.
A pilot has been suggested, but the Government would prefer the UK to implement the measures throughout the United Kingdom. The issue is rightly within the UK's domain at present. The weekend's tragedy in Gloucestershire should be a salutary lesson that action must be taken. If the problem cannot be addressed, it is our view that the UK Government should work with us to allow the people of Scotland to make the necessary changes, to make Scotland safer and stronger, to reduce drink-driving and, as a consequence, to save lives.
Meeting closed at 17:32.