The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-11567, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on lowering the drink-drive limit.
Members will be aware that the Scottish Government has long argued that a lower drink-drive limit will save lives and help to make Scotland’s roads safer. Some members in the chamber have also long campaigned on that important issue. In particular, I pay tribute to Dave Thompson. He has been a tireless campaigner for a lower drink-drive limit and first raised the matter in Parliament way back in October 2007.
Earlier this month, we saw the 50th anniversary of the first anti drink-drive television adverts in the United Kingdom. The existing drink-drive limit was introduced in 1967. Social attitudes towards drink driving were very different when the limit was first introduced. It is fair to say that, back then—hard as it may be to believe now—many people really did not think that it was irresponsible or dangerous to get behind the wheel of a car after drinking. Since then, attitudes towards drink drivers have, understandably, hardened considerably.
A survey of UK drivers that was published earlier this month found that 91 per cent of people agreed that drink driving was unacceptable, and 92 per cent said that they would feel ashamed if they were caught drinking and driving. In comparison, in 1979, more than half of male drivers and nearly two thirds of young male drivers admitted drink driving on a weekly basis.
However, the sad truth is that there remains a persistent minority who, despite repeated warnings, put their lives and the lives of others at risk by getting behind the wheel after drinking alcohol. In 2012-13, 4,730 people were convicted of drink and drug-driving offences in Scotland’s courts. That may be a dramatic fall when it is compared with the 8,145 people who were convicted of those offences in 2003-04, but too many people are still choosing to ignore the warnings and drink and drive.
The consequences of drink driving can be tragic. Drink driving costs lives. That is why it is right that we take action to reduce the risk on our roads.
Last month, the report “Reported Road Casualties Scotland 2013” was published. It revealed that an estimated 580 casualties and around 10 fatalities were due to drink-drive accidents in Scotland in 2012. The figure for fatalities is a fall on the 2011 figure, but the average for the past four years remains at 20 fatalities. Casualties that resulted from drink-drive accidents have fallen by more than 50 per cent since 2002, from 1,270 to 580. In 2013, 2.4 per cent of drivers who were involved in injury accidents and were asked for a breath test registered a positive reading or refused to take the test.
Although we welcome the reduction in the number of casualties, the figures still show that, over the past four years, an estimated one in 10 deaths on Scotland’s roads—20 deaths a year—involved a driver with a blood alcohol reading that is above the current limit. Another 560 people suffer injury, and 100 of them are seriously injured.
Some have said that our efforts should concentrate on strictly enforcing the existing drink-driving limit and that there is no need to reduce it. Let me be clear: that ignores the scientific evidence that the risks of driving under the influence of alcohol start to increase well below the current legal limit. Indeed, a wealth of research indicates that impairment begins with any departure from zero blood alcohol concentration.
With a blood alcohol level of between 50mg and 80mg, drivers’ vision is affected, slowing reactions to red lights and tail lights. They are more likely to drive too fast and to misjudge distances when approaching bends. Motorcyclists will find it difficult to drive in a straight line.
British Medical Association evidence shows that the relative risk of being involved in a road traffic crash for drivers with a reading of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood is 10 times higher than for drivers with a zero blood alcohol reading. The relative crash risk for drivers with a reading of 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood was more than twice the level for drivers with a zero blood alcohol reading.
The independent review of drink and drug-driving law conducted in 2010 by Sir Peter North concluded that reducing the drink-drive limit from 80mg to 50mg will save lives.
The current drink-drive limit has had its day. If we look at the drink-driving limits across Europe, we can see that only the United Kingdom and Malta have a legal blood alcohol limit of 80mg per 100ml of blood. Reducing the limit to a lower level of 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, to bring Scotland into line with most other European countries, is the right approach and will make Scotland’s roads safer.
I first raised the drink-drive limit with the UK Government back in 2008. It is a real shame that it has taken until now to reach the point at which we are able to reduce the drink-drive limit to make Scotland’s roads safer.
The Scotland Act 2012 devolved the power to set the drink-drive limit. We welcomed the fact that we have the power to make Scotland’s roads safer through having a lower limit. However, we consider that that limited transfer of power was a missed opportunity. We wanted a package of powers that would allow the police to carry out the breath testing of drivers anytime, anywhere. We also called for powers to allow us to consider differential limits—for example, for young and novice drivers—and the ability to change the penalties for drink driving. However, those powers were not granted by the UK Government.
It is right that this Parliament should have the powers to set appropriate and proportionate penalties for drink driving. I welcome Margaret Mitchell’s amendment, which seeks the Parliament’s views on drink-driving penalties. I presume that that means that she supports the call for such powers to be granted to this Parliament.
We are clear that the automatic 12-month driving ban is appropriate at the current limit and will remain appropriate at the lower limit. There is strong evidence that drivers with a blood alcohol reading of between 50mg and 80mg are significantly impaired, and an automatic ban is appropriate to deter people from drinking and driving.
We will continue to argue for greater powers to tackle drink driving. The Scottish Government’s submission to the Smith commission makes the case that giving this Parliament full responsibility for the law on road traffic offences will help to tackle drink driving, make Scotland’s roads safer and address the anomalies in the boundaries between reserved and devolved areas.
We want the lower drink-drive limit to result in less drink driving, not more convicted drink drivers. To ensure that drivers are aware that the lower limit is coming into effect, the Scottish Government yesterday launched a public information campaign that is aimed at informing all adults of driving age in Scotland. The campaign comprises advertising on television, video on demand and radio; partnership and stakeholder engagement; field marketing; website updates; social media; and public relations. It includes material relating to the effects of alcohol the morning after a night out.
Let me be clear. Whatever the limit may be, it should not be forgotten that any level of alcohol impairs driving and that our central message remains “Don’t drink and drive.”
I am happy to accept the amendments from Labour and the Tories, on the basis that they do not seek to reduce the current period of disqualification as a result of the reduction to 50mg and would welcome the opportunity to consider what further powers might be available and what further action could be taken if we had control over penalties.
I move,
That the Parliament supports the reduction of the drink drive limit, which will help to save lives and make Scotland’s roads safer, bringing Scotland into line with most other European countries, and encourages drivers not to consume any alcohol at all before driving.
15:35
I say at outset that Scottish Labour supports the motion. I will speak to the amendment from Scottish Labour.
We have no reservations in our support for the Government’s intentions in this matter. To reduce the drink-drive limit is the right thing to do and this is the right time to do it. If the motion is agreed to and the policy is implemented, we hope and anticipate that it will bring about greater safety on Scottish roads and protect citizens throughout Scotland.
The cabinet secretary was good enough to rehearse the statistics. The situation is maddening, because it does not need to be this way. Few members, and few of the people who are listening to the debate, will not have been touched in some way by an incident in which a driver who was under the influence of drink—not just a drunk driver, as we might imagine them, but someone whose abilities were impaired through alcohol—caused an accident. Such accidents cause enormous angst, injury and sometimes, unfortunately, death.
In 2010, the UK Labour Party commissioned a review from Sir Peter North. He recommended that the blood alcohol content limit be reduced to 50mg, estimating that up to 168 deaths would be saved in the UK in the first year of implementation. It is depressing that the UK Government refused to accept Sir Peter North’s recommendations. As the cabinet secretary acknowledged, that was a missed opportunity, which we hope that the UK Government will revisit sooner rather than later.
The measure that we are considering today is a bit like the ban on smoking in public places. Mr MacAskill was right when he said that, in the 1960s and 1970s, people accepted as part of the culture the notion that a man—it was men in particular, I have to say—would get behind the wheel of a motor car while impaired or, as was often the case, drunk. Machismo was involved, and people thought that everyone was able to make a judgment about their fitness to drive.
The introduction of alcometers and breath tests changed things. However, we need to acknowledge that even in modern Scotland we have been involved in all sorts of arguments about how fairly the technology for detecting impairment is used and that we have made it very difficult for police officers to obtain the evidence that is necessary for prosecution.
I am pleased that much of that is behind us and that we realise that this is a public safety issue, rather than a matter of criminalising members of our community. I do not expect much antagonism in this afternoon’s debate. I anticipate that all members will support the Government’s intentions.
I have done some research into how the proposed change will affect communities. When Ireland indicated that the standard limit of 80mg per 100ml of blood would be reduced to 50mg per 100ml, the council in Kerry, in south-west Ireland, moved that the proposal should be amended to enable the garda to issue permits to respected members of the local community who would be trusted to drive with a higher level of alcohol in their blood. The idea was debated with some strength and was proposed to the justice secretary in Dublin, but I am pleased to say that no further steps were taken and no decision was offered—the proposal merely fell by the wayside through lack of support.
However, that indicates the concerns that exist in rural communities about the impacts of the changes, which we should acknowledge; hence, the Labour amendment seeks to add a reference to an educational and media campaign to the Government’s motion. It is important that we further educate the community. If we tell them 10 times, we will need to tell them 10 times more and 10 times more again. Only when they are personally involved in incidents involving drivers who are under the influence of alcohol do people take these things seriously. We need to get it into the minds of people like me that those drivers are not evil people; they are careless people who do not think ahead of time. The Government and the Parliament have a duty to bring to people’s attention now the impacts of what could happen, particularly over the festive period.
Does the member share my view that we should introduce a graduated driving licence scheme for young drivers? The member will know that the proposal is that no alcohol be allowed in a young driver’s blood during the training period until they have a full, unrestricted licence.
The member makes an important point, and I would support that proposal. I was at Stranraer academy yesterday and that very issue was raised out of the blue. The young person concerned thought it was very unfair that we would treat young drivers differently from mature drivers such as me, although I raised the fact that young drivers are statistically more likely to be involved in road accidents whether or not they are impaired through alcohol.
I hope that the Government invests the necessary financial support to ensure that an educational media campaign is launched. I invite the cabinet secretary to examine the possibility of modern-day alcometers being provided to the general public in some form so that they can understand the impact of the alcohol that they consume—I have no knowledge of the cost of such things or whether that would be a practical solution.
I trust that, as the debate progresses, the Parliament will agree that the motion and the Labour amendment should be supported. Subject to the speeches from the Conservative Party in the debate, we will make a judgment on the Conservative amendment.
I move amendment S4M-11567.1, to insert at end:
“, and considers that the accompanying education and media campaign should cover the morning after effects of alcohol”.
15:43
The Scottish Conservatives support initiatives to make Scotland’s roads safer. The pain, heartache and devastation that the victims—and their families—of drunk drivers suffer are, frankly, unimaginable. The new 50mg limit therefore represents an important measure in trying to ensure that no family has to endure that experience.
Last week, it was reported that no fewer than 10,000 officers will be responsible for a drink-driving crackdown over the festive season. We know, depressingly, that, at the same time as those officers are tasked with pulling over vast numbers of people for random spot checks, crimes such as domestic abuse will escalate. Therefore, in seeking to legitimately prioritise manpower to crack down on drink driving over Christmas and new year, it is essential that that deployment be proportionate. That means ensuring that sufficient police officers are available to police housebreakings, thefts, serious and sexual assaults and incidents of domestic abuse.
Since its inception, Police Scotland has attracted justified criticism as a culture of target setting has been exposed. Only a few months ago, concerns about the implementation of Police Scotland’s stop-and-search policy were well aired in this chamber, and the targeting of speeding in general and in certain specific areas has attracted adverse headlines.
Although the chief constable states that rank-and-file officers do not have numerical targets imposed on them, in May and July of this year the Scottish Police Authority and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland published reports that highlight—[Interruption.]
Excuse me, Ms Mitchell. Sandra White has a point of order.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Could Margaret Mitchell please mention the motion and the amendment that she is speaking to? I have not heard anything about them.
Thank you for that request for a point of order, but it is not a point of order. The words that Margaret Mitchell chooses to use are a matter for her.
I suggest that Sandra White should listen carefully—she has obviously lost the thread of the argument.
Those reports highlight perceived pressures on police officers not just to meet but to exceed targets as part of the appraisal process.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will do in a minute, if Elaine Murray does not mind—I just want to complete this point.
The SPA report identified evidence that
“officers perceive a pressure to conduct searches”.
Meanwhile, the HMICS report found evidence that
“detailed processes do exist across Scotland to monitor individual officer productivity and their personal contribution towards KPIs and targets.”
Consequently, it is important to stress that lowering the drink-drive limit should not and must not become about providing an opportunity for Police Scotland to fill quotas or meet targets.
Could Margaret Mitchell clarify the intention of her amendment? As I read it, the suggestion that the application of penalties for exceeding the drink-driving limit should be proportionate could almost be taken as a suggestion that we should take a more lenient view of people who are found to have a blood alcohol level of between 50mg and 80mg. If that is the intention of the amendment, I think that we would have difficulty supporting it.
I will come to that point specifically, if Elaine Murray will allow me to develop my argument.
Furthermore, the cabinet secretary has emphasised—as does the motion—that the new drink-drive limit brings Scotland into line with most of Europe. Despite that, during the consultation phase and the Justice Committee’s evidence sessions, the Scottish Government failed to make it clear that although penalties for drink driving in Europe vary widely, they tend to be less severe than those in the UK. In France, for example, the penalty for a driver with a blood alcohol concentration of between 50mg and 80mg is usually a fine, although drivers who are well over the limit face stiffer penalties, including a more substantial fine and a licence suspension of up to three years.
In the UK, the penalties for driving or attempting to drive while above the legal limit, which is currently 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, are set by Westminster. They include six months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to £5,000 and/or a driving ban for at least one year. Those penalties are stiff, so I welcome the Labour amendment, which calls for an education and media campaign to accompany the reduction in the limit to cover the morning-after effects of alcohol. That should help to ensure that an otherwise law-abiding individual does not unwittingly find themselves just marginally over the new legal limit, as a result of which they are criminalised, which could have a far-reaching adverse impact on their livelihood.
The Scottish National Party has made it quite clear that it thinks that the power to change the drink-driving penalties should be devolved to Holyrood, yet, as of last week, no attempt had been made to work with or even to consult Westminster justice ministers on that important issue. As a result, bizarrely, drivers who live in England but who travel in Scotland and who are over the 50mg limit but under the 80mg limit potentially face severe penalties for a crime that has no statutory basis south of the border.
The amendment in my name seeks to achieve two things. First, given past events, it calls on Police Scotland to enforce the new drink-drive limit proportionately rather than as part of a target-setting exercise. Secondly, it encourages debate about the application of penalties for drink driving in Scotland. To date, it is evident that the SNP Government has not fully thought through the full implications of a measure that, if properly and proportionately implemented, has the potential to prevent the misery that can result from drink driving and to save lives.
I move amendment S4M-11567.2, to insert after “roads safer”:
“; considers that the application and penalties imposed should be proportionate,”.
We move to the open debate. Speeches should be of four minutes, and there is time for interventions.
15:49
I am delighted to be taking part in the debate because, as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said, I have been campaigning to have the drink-driving limit reduced from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg since I entered the Parliament in 2007.
Indeed, after a chat with the cabinet secretary in 2007, I wrote to him asking him to take action on the matter. I then took part in several debates on the issue: the first in October 2007 and a further two in 2008. I also hosted a number of events in the Parliament. It soon became clear that there was overwhelming support in this Parliament for reducing the drink-driving limit—indeed, one vote in Parliament was unanimous. However, we had no power to do anything about the matter at that time.
After those debates, I continually pressed the matter with the UK Government, which eventually agreed to devolve powers over the issue via the Scotland Act 2012. That was rapidly followed by the Scottish Government announcing in March 2013 its intention to reduce the limit, following consultation. That rapid action by the Scottish Government was music to my ears, and it contrasted markedly with the typical prevarication of Westminster.
Because of the UK Government’s position, it has not been easy to get a reduction in the drink-driving limit in Scotland. I believe that many lives have been lost or blighted because of the delays caused by the UK Government. As far back as 1997 and again in 1998, the UK Government said that it intended to reduce the limit to 50mg. However, in March 2000, it announced that, because of possible moves to harmonise drink-driving limits in the European Union, it had decided not to lower the limit. In January 2001, the EU did indeed adopt a recommendation proposing harmonisation of the drink-driving limit at 50mg or below, but the UK Government—true to form—announced that it had no plans to reduce the limit as the recommendation was not binding on member states.
The UK Government continued to procrastinate until it said in the second review of its road safety strategy, published in February 2007, that it would keep the case for a reduction in the blood alcohol limit under review. Then, in June 2007, it said that it was once more in favour of a 50mg limit but wanted to see evidence of enforcement of the current 80mg limit by the police before it published a consultation paper later in the year to gauge public opinion. That consultation paper never appeared, and so the prevarication continued and more lives were lost.
Subsequently, I chased up the UK Government in January 2008 and again in April 2008, when I was told that it was pressing ahead with the consultation and that it would give careful consideration to the views of interested parties in Scotland. With the support of the Scottish Government, I continued to press the matter and, eventually, in 2010 the UK Government agreed to devolve powers over the issue.
As a result of the new law there will undoubtedly be fewer accidents and lives lost in Scotland. However, I regret that a similar reduction in the drink-driving limit will not apply in the rest of the UK to cut the loss of life. Every life is precious, so it can only be a good thing that the new law will result in lives being saved. It is significant that, once it had the power, the Scottish Government acted so quickly—unlike Westminster, where the limit is still 80mg, which is unlike every European country bar Malta.
We are fortunate that we have a Scottish Government that is not in the hip pocket of the big booze companies and therefore has no conflict of interest when enacting legislation for the good of the people of Scotland. Long may that continue. My position on drink driving is this: if you are driving, then do not drink; and if you are drinking, then do not drive.
15:54
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and voice my support for the lowering of the drink-driving limit. Sir Peter North’s report indicated that that was a highly appropriate thing to do, and the public clearly support it.
Those driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs endanger themselves and our communities. We should focus on refreshing awareness of the practical steps that can be taken to deal with the problem. The penalties imposed on people need to be effective, acting both as adequate punishment and a deterrent against future drink driving, and they should safeguard the public from the dangers of such activity.
In addition, any changes made to the limit must be accompanied by a complementary public awareness campaign, as Labour proposes. Across the UK each year, there are about 430 deaths and 16,000 injuries because of drink driving and associated drug driving, and a proportionate amount of those occur here in Scotland.
There is strong public support for lowering the drink-driving limit. Estimates show that up to 17 lives could be saved and many injuries could be prevented annually in Scotland by reducing the limit to 50mg per 100ml of blood, which is the standard in most EU countries. There are those who would argue for an even lower level, but this proposal is a welcome step and, as I say, it is supported by the public.
I invite the minister to address a few issues relating to testing and sentencing for drink-driving offences. Is it correct that the police have unlimited powers to stop cars but may only proceed to a breathalyser test if they suspect that the driver has been drinking? Would the minister want to change that?
The North report asserts that breathalysers have now become much more accurate and thus the statutory option for blood and urine testing is no longer required. The proposal for a breathalyser test level is now, I believe, 25mg. Is that indeed the trigger level that should be adopted? Under the previous rules, flexibility was given up to 40mg, so what will the new guidance be? How long will it take to recalibrate the current testing equipment to the new standards? If we do not get that right, lawyers will, quite rightly, act to protect their clients.
Can the cabinet secretary guarantee that matters of this sort are fully in hand before he introduces the new measure?
The recalibration of the breathalyser happened last year. It is very important because the power is reserved, and I think that it would be a great improvement in the future to have that devolved. Does the member agree?
I am in favour of that area being devolved appropriately so that we can cover all aspects. We already cover some of them.
Do our Scottish courts have the power to order a permanent removal of licence after the second offence? If there has been a second offence, we should have that power. What is the sentencing guideline for anyone who is caught driving after their licence has been suspended because of drink driving? Additionally, driving while impaired by drugs and alcohol is a growing problem in our country. What is the Scottish Government’s view on that?
Finally, I hope that the Government will support the part of my proposed member’s bill on alcohol that would ensure that general practitioners are notified of offences such as drink driving, especially when it involves a custodial offence. In all my 30-plus years as a GP, I was never informed that such an offence had been committed. There should also be control over caffeinated alcohol mixes, which can lead to people believing that they are more competent than they are in reality. It is important to limit the caffeine levels in caffeine alcohol mixes, and I hope that the Government will support the part of my bill that deals with that.
We must use the powers that we have already, although I personally support more powers for us to differentiate levels such as those indicated by David Stewart for novice drivers.
I am very disappointed that the UK coalition has backed off from this matter. Its record is as poor in this area as it is in the area of nutrition and tackling obesity. The Scottish Government will have our backing for all reasonable measures to improve public health. I support the motion and welcome the cabinet secretary’s support for Labour’s amendment.
15:59
I commend Dave Thompson for his tenacity and the work that he has carried out over the years to bring this change to fruition. I thank him very much for that.
As I and others have mentioned, the majority of people in Scotland support a lower drink-driving limit, which was evidenced in the Scottish Government’s consultation. An independent analysis of respondents to the consultation found that 74 per cent believed that the drink-driving limit should be reduced and 87 per cent of those agreed that the blood alcohol limit should be reduced to 50mg per 100ml.
The British Medical Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents support the reduction of the drink-driving limit, and we have to ask why. As others have said, the reduction will save lives and, importantly, it will discourage drivers from drinking and driving—that is where the education aspect comes in.
Figures have been bandied about, and I would like to add a few of my own. An average of 20 lives are lost each year through drink driving. Last year, 90 people were seriously injured and 340 people were slightly injured as a result of drink driving. That is totally unacceptable. Drink driving affects all who are involved.
Paul Bassett, general manager of the Scottish Ambulance Service’s south-east division, said:
“All too often our ambulance crews have to deal with the tragic consequences of drink driving, which have a devastating impact on families and communities.”
Drink driving affects ambulance drivers and rescue workers as well. He also said:
“The message is clear and we hope this initiative will reduce the number of lives that are ruined as a result of drink driving.”
No one should drink and drive, and drivers should take responsibility for their actions.
Kathleen Braidwood, road safety officer for RoSPA, said:
“People need to realise that any amount of alcohol impairs a driver’s ability to judge speed and distance while behind the wheel. Alcohol also slows reaction times and can make drivers over-confident and more likely to take risks. Lowering the drink-drive limit will not only contribute to making our roads safer but also have a wider social impact.”
That is very important. As I said, drink driving affects all aspects of lives.
Graeme Pearson mentioned education and the media. The cabinet secretary has used most of the measures that we have talked about to make the general public aware of the changes, which have been very well outlined. TV, radio, electronic signs both in Scotland and on the border, petrol stations, pubs and retail organisations have been covered very carefully, and I doubt whether anyone would not be aware of the changes that are going to take place. It is incumbent on drivers and others to know what the law is.
I did not quite understand where Margaret Mitchell was coming from earlier—I think that a number of us did not—so perhaps when she sums up we could have more explanation from her.
When the Scottish Government asked the Westminster Government in 2012 for powers to reduce the drink-driving limit, it also asked for powers to make changes to penalties, but the Westminster Government did not give them. Like Richard Simpson, we all agree that we would welcome having those powers here in the Scottish Parliament, so that they could work in tandem with the other powers.
Drink-driving blights lives for everyone and we have to do our utmost to ensure that, as Graeme Pearson said, we do not criminalise people but educate them to the fact that drink driving is not acceptable in Scotland.
16:04
The current drink-drive limit was set in 1965. Since then, I am glad to say, perceptions have changed. Public and scientific understanding of the risks has increased dramatically. However, for many folk there is still some confusion as to what the existing limit allows. Is it a pint or a glass of wine? What constitutes a unit, and how many can someone have and still drive legally?
In future the message could not be clearer: if you have had even one drink, you should not drive. The evidence is irrefutable. Drinking even a small amount deteriorates drivers’ reaction times, concentration and motoring skills. It can instil false confidence, impair co-ordination and weaken the judgment of factors such as distance and speed.
As we have heard, the number of drink-drive accidents and casualties has halved in recent years. However, the latest Transport Scotland data shows that there were 440 drink-drive accidents in 2012, causing 580 people to be injured and 10 fatalities.
A 2010 study by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence found that drivers intoxicated to the existing limit, 80mg, were 11 times more likely to be involved in a fatal car crash than drivers who had no alcohol in their blood. Reduced to 50mg, that falls to three times as likely. In short, drinking at all increases the chance of a collision.
Why not adopt a zero-tolerance approach, then? Ideally, no one with alcohol in their system would get behind the wheel. However, we understand that that would cause practical and technical difficulties.
A study by University College London estimates that reducing the limit to 50mg would still prevent 65 deaths and 250 serious injuries a year if adopted across the UK. The evidence from Ireland is that it will encourage a culture change that will deliver year-on-year improvements. That in itself is a great step forward. I hope that the rest of the United Kingdom follows Scotland’s lead.
I cannot support the Conservative amendment. I am afraid that Margaret Mitchell did not set out a coherent case for it. The mandatory penalty, which is to lose one’s licence for 12 months, is still proportionate for the new level that we are introducing. Of course, judicial discretion allows for exceptional circumstances.
The Justice Committee took evidence on the issue a couple of weeks ago. Chief Superintendent lain Murray was clear in his evidence to us. He said that lowering or varying the penalty based on the amount of alcohol consumed would reduce the deterrent effect and that we should not take account of
“whether somebody was three times or six times more likely to kill themselves or somebody else.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 October 2014; c 40.]
He was very firm in his view that we should have a single penalty.
Getting the message across to every single driver that there is no safe amount that they can drink before taking control of a vehicle will arguably require the most extensive driver education campaign ever. I have some concerns about whether that can be achieved in just two and a half weeks.
I am sympathetic to Labour’s amendment, and I wonder whether the impact of alcohol on drivers the next day needs to be more prominent in the publicity material. How many people know that it can take roughly 13 hours to be alcohol free after drinking four pints of strong lager or ale? As Dr Rice alluded to in his evidence to the committee, it is still a common misconception that coffee, sleep, a shower, exercise or a full Scottish breakfast will speed up the removal of alcohol from one’s system. It does not.
I support the “Don’t drink and drive” approach, but it must be accompanied by sufficient education so that we can reach the zero-tolerance approach.
We are able to modify the drink-drive limit using the significant powers devolved through the Scotland Act 2012. Steered by the Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Scotland Mike Moore, it is testament to our commitment to strengthen the powers of this Parliament. Scottish Liberal Democrats will always support evidence-based efforts to make our roads safer and to save lives; we will therefore back the motion.
16:08
Drink driving has been a scourge on Scotland’s roads for too long, leading to completely unnecessary injuries and deaths, and devastating families and communities across the country. It is absolutely right that the Scottish Government is taking this decisive action.
Around one in 10 deaths on Scotland’s roads involve drivers who are over the limit. As Alison McInnes said, having even one drink is enough to make someone three times as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash. That is why lowering the blood alcohol limit is the right thing to do to make our roads safer, save lives and prevent more families from having to deal with losing a loved one as a result of drink driving.
The new limit will send out a clear message that driving after one drink is unacceptable. As other members said, I hope that the rest of the UK will follow Scotland’s example on this important issue and come into line with the rest of Europe. I agree with Margaret Dekker of Scotland’s Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers, who stated:
“To my mind, it is only a start to eradicating the scourge of drink driving in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 October 2014; c 45.]
Our European neighbours have already introduced the same or an even lower limit. A lot of Polish people who live in Scotland know that the limit is a lot lower in Poland, at 20mg. Only in Malta and the rest of the UK will the limit will still be at 80mg after this Parliament passes the relevant measure. For example, the Republic of Ireland lowered its drink-drive limit to 50mg in 2011, with a further lower limit of 20mg for specified drivers, such as those who have recently passed their test.
France, which has a different social attitude towards drink driving, has a 50mg limit, but it has a long tradition of random breath testing. The Justice Committee was told by Dr Rice of Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems that
“15 per cent of French drivers are tested every year, but the numbers who are tested in the UK are in single figures.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 October 2014; c 52.]
There is a case for random breath testing but, unfortunately, it is another of the policy areas that is reserved to Westminster. I remember the numerous road safety campaigns in the French media warning that police will conduct random breath testing on local roads, which worked well.
I am sympathetic to Margaret Mitchell's amendment, but only as it reads, not how she explained it in her speech. I agree that the application and penalties that are imposed should be proportionate. However, I cannot support the amendment now. As we heard at committee, the 50mg limit is proportionate. We have the limit just now and we have the penalties that we have just now. If we are thinking about lowering the limit further at some point, I agree that we will need to have the powers over the penalties devolved here. That will be of benefit to us.
Margaret Dekker, of Scotland's Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers, said:
“We would like to see a zero limit.”
A lot of people ask for a zero limit, but I do not particularly agree with that view. As I said, other countries, such as Poland, have a lower limit. If we could have all the powers devolved, I might consider it. We know that the Scottish Taxi Federation supports a zero-tolerance approach, because too many people have been the victims of drink drivers, and the Road Haulage Association supports more stringent drink-driving regulations.
I think that there is a case to have all the relevant powers devolved. Lowering the blood alcohol limit is the right thing to do, and I am looking forward to continuing on the road of eradicating the scourge of drink driving in Scotland.
16:12
As a veteran road safety campaigner, I very much welcome the debate this afternoon and, of course, I will be supporting the Scottish Government’s motion.
I will focus my remarks on young driver safety. It is appropriate that we are having this debate in road safety week. I will begin by reading part of a blog that was posted by the best friend of a drink-driver. It states:
“We all enjoy our nights out but my mate takes it way too far, he’s never aggressive or anything when he’s drunk but last Friday night was the tipping point for many of us that go out.
We found out that after 18 pints of Caffreys, 10 JD & Cokes and various shots of liqueurs that he actually drove the 3 miles home. All that started at 5pm and ended at 4am.
This has got to stop, if he’d hit anyone or anything then he would never have known about it.”
The blog went on:
“My take on it is that if he is stupid enough to do it then he will have to face the consequences, but it’s not just him that would suffer ... So would his wife, his three kids and god forbid the poor ... family of the person that he hits.”
Having spent years campaigning for driver safety, I have learned a lot about the tragedies that are involved in drink driving and have spent a lot of time thinking about the solutions to this crucial aspect of driver safety. The trigger for me was the tragic death of two 17-year-olds in March 2010, which were directly linked to drink driving.
It is a truism that is not depleted by repetition that there is no greater tragedy, no greater sorrow and no greater loss than for a parent to lose a child. That tragedy in the Highlands led me to set up a local group called the north of Scotland driver awareness team, which led to local campaigns in the Highlands and Islands called sensible driving, always arriving.
Although drink driving appears to be a single issue, as many members have mentioned it is in fact a diverse problem that includes various dimensions such as alcohol abuse, underage drinking and other social concerns, as identified in the North review and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence report of 2010. Therefore, the solutions need to be equally intricate and wide-ranging. The issue demands a comprehensive, creative and flexible approach.
Does David Stewart agree that, to deal with the full range of issues, we need all the powers relating to the matter to be devolved to the Parliament?
I welcome the work that Dave Thompson has done on drink driving. As Dr Richard Simpson mentioned, there are strong arguments for devolving day-to-day administration of the matter, so I support the thrust of Dave Thompson’s comments.
It is important to view drink driving in the broader context of the public health implications of alcohol abuse, so the solutions must take into account drinking patterns and those groups that are particularly at risk.
As a Highlands and Islands road safety campaigner, I welcome any measures that will improve road safety and reduce fatalities and serious injuries as a result. It is a tragedy that, every year, one death in 10 on Scottish roads involves a driver who is over the drink-driving limit. Every year, an average of 30 deaths on Scottish roads are caused by drivers who are over the legal limit. In 2010, there were 750 casualties and 20 deaths as a direct result of drink driving. In 2011, there were 680 casualties and 20 deaths as a direct result of alcohol.
Of course, I heartily welcome the proposal to lower the permitted blood alcohol level in Scotland—a power conferred by the Scotland Act 2012—and look forward to the UK Government following our lead for the rest of the UK as soon as possible. I would welcome the speedy introduction of such legislation.
We need a clear and unambiguous message. If someone is driving, they should not drink. They should not do the lottery with their career or force other road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, to do the same. If they do, they will face the consequences.
International best practice suggests that the countries that have the lowest drink-driving figures have three things in common: a long track record of drink-driving enforcement; a high level of detection; and mass media support for enforcement.
For young drivers in particular, graduated licence schemes with restrictions on passengers, night driving and zero tolerance of alcohol will, along with increased education, reduce the carnage on our roads and reduce deaths and injuries throughout Scotland.
16:17
I will address both amendments. The first one—Graeme Pearson’s—is absolutely fine and dandy. In fact, a great deal of the committee conversation and interrogation of witnesses a week or so ago was about the morning-after effects of alcohol. It was mostly concerned with people being unsure about whether they would be caught the next day—quite innocently, having been at a wedding perhaps.
I do not understand Margaret Mitchell’s amendment so perhaps she can clarify in her closing speech. I will read out the motion as it would be amended:
“That the Parliament supports the reduction of the drink drive limit, which will help to save lives and make Scotland’s roads safer; considers that the application and penalties imposed should be proportionate”.
Does it mean that the 50mg limit should not be applied to some people who are stopped and are over it? Does it also mean that, if it is applied to them, they should not have a mandatory ban for the year? We cannot do that; there is mandatory banning. The 50mg limit is just being substituted for the 80mg one.
Margaret Mitchell rose—
No, I have only four minutes. I want to support Margaret Mitchell’s amendment but she will need to clarify what it means, for goodness’ sake.
The committee wholly supported the reduction to 50mg in 100ml. We were concerned not about people having a drink in the pub and then taking to their car, which they should not do, but about what happens the morning after. As my colleague has stolen my line about the Scottish breakfast, I return to my own line, which is that Irn-Bru and a bacon roll and just having a cold shower and taking a walk with the dog will not do; people will still be over the limit.
The medical evidence was that the liver functions like goods going through the supermarket checkout: things can only go through one at a time, and each drink has to go through at a certain rate; it cannot go through more quickly in any way. I hope that members can follow the metaphor—I did at the time.
However, for me, the most important thing is information, and not only over Christmas. When we move into the summer and spring, people are out in the sun having wine and so on. We need cross-border information. That is particularly important in the Scottish Borders.
I know that there are going to be electronic signs on gantries on the motorways, but I suggest that there should also be signs at motorway service stations—I see the cabinet secretary nodding, so he is obviously ahead of me on that. I am glad that the adverts are on ITV Border, to give it a wee plug. We do not get STV in the Scottish Borders, so it was important that ITV Border was encapsulated in the advertising.
Unlike my usual style, I am going to be a bit controversial. I know that this issue is not devolved, but I am slightly concerned about random testing, not because I in any way support people drinking and driving but because random testing for me strays into the area of civil liberties. We have been there with stop and search. The police said that most stop and searches are consensual, but if a policeman asks to search someone, the person will think that they will be on shaky ground if they say no, so they will probably just say yes, because they have nothing to hide. The public say that they do not mind random testing, but I do not know whether every motorist who is pulled over for no reason whatever and who then rolls down their window and has a policeman lean in to see whether they can smell any alcohol on their breath will be that happy. There is a balance between taking the public with us and saying that people can just be stopped in any event.
We all know about when the police stop someone, who then rolls down their window and is told, “Hen, your brake light’s not functioning”—we all know fine what that is about. However, the police said in evidence to the Justice Committee that they can stop people anyway, without having any cause for concern about how they are driving or the condition of their vehicle. I did not know that that was the case, and I would like the situation to be clarified. I leave that with the cabinet secretary. Everybody says that they are in favour of random testing, but if we had the power and we started to do it on a large scale, the public might get a little bit worried. I can see that Monsieur Allard does not agree—I said that I would be controversial—but I think that the issue is worth considering.
16:21
Reducing the drink-drive limit is important, and I fully agree with the motion and the Labour Party’s amendment.
The UK currently has the highest drink-drive alcohol limit in the European Union at 80mg per 100ml of blood. There is clear evidence that a reduction to 50mg per 100ml will reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries that are caused by drink driving. Estimates of how many lives can be saved with a lower limit vary, but there is evidence that between three and 17 lives could be saved per annum on Scottish roads.
The risk of getting into a crash significantly rises once blood alcohol levels go above 50mg in every 100ml of blood. Along with the strong evidence base for reducing the drink-drive limit on 5 December, there is widespread support from external organisations such as the British Medical Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. They are professionals who deal daily with our ailments in our health service and who deal with accidents.
The Government needs to ensure that the proposals are fully resourced so that Police Scotland has the support that it needs to implement the policy. That should include resources to educate drivers about the changes in the law. The cabinet secretary has set out clearly how he will ensure that the message gets through, but he should be aware that people in a lot communities, particularly youngsters, could benefit from such education and advice.
Personally, I am in favour of reducing the drink-drive limit to a much lower level. I realise that a zero level could cause problems, as certain food, medication and perhaps even mouthwashes can have an impact on breath tests. However, I feel that, in future, reducing the limit to a nominal level such as 0.5mg per 100ml would get rid of a lot of confusion about how much one can drink before getting behind the wheel of a vehicle. The important fact is that loss of life or limb and disruption to family life are far too high a price for us to pay, so we should secure such levels. It is pure madness to allow people in our society to continue to put at risk not only themselves but many others.
As a councillor, I have seen first hand the hardship that families have to go through either because someone’s conviction for drink driving results in loss of employment or loss of other amenities or because victims have been injured, through no fault of their own, and the families have had to pick up the pieces. Sometimes we underestimate the value that we lose when someone is injured or has lost their life because of drink driving.
I am also keen for the cabinet secretary to look at the issue of all the people who use machinery, such as divers, pilots, drivers and train drivers—we need to look at them as well, not simply car drivers. I hope that the cabinet secretary will take that message on board and I look forward to his future proposals.
16:26
As already stated, a drink-driving limit has been in place since 1965. Since then, social attitudes towards those who drink drive have changed; they have changed dramatically since the 1960s, with most people taking a hard-line stance on the issues surrounding drink driving. I would go as far as to say that the people of Scotland have developed a strong social conscience towards the issue of drink driving and are clear that drink driving can have devastating effects.
Despite that, I am disappointed to note that an estimated 20 lives each year continue to be lost on Scotland’s roads as a result of drink driving, not to mention the serious injuries that are sustained by members of the public. That is why I am pleased that the Scottish Government has decided to lower the drink-driving limit. I was also encouraged by the results of the Scottish Government consultation, which showed that the vast majority of people who responded would support a lower drink-driving limit in Scotland. In fact, just short of 75 per cent of respondents said that they would support a lower drink-driving limit. I believe that that reinforces the idea that our nation has a social conscience on the issue.
The new drink-driving limit that is in place from 5 December will make Scotland’s roads safer as it allows the police, prosecutors and our courts to take more drivers off the road who pose a risk to public safety. It will also act as a deterrent—it will encourage people not to drink and drive at all, particularly as the new limit is coming into force in the lead-up to the festive period, when many may have been tempted to have a drink and then drive after an office party or a family gathering.
When I first started driving, I—like anyone else—would have a couple of pints. Then I met someone who was stopped one night whose couple of pints had put him over the limit. Then, I went down to one pint and I said, “Why should I?” But then I thought, “I don’t want to be caught. I don’t want to drink and drive.” Therefore, now when I take friends out, I drink orange juice and I still enjoy my night.
With that in mind, the Scottish Government is doing all that it can to ensure that the public is properly informed about the change in the drink-driving limit. The campaign was launched on the 17th of this month and includes TV and radio adverts across Scotland as well as a robust social media campaign.
The new drink-driving limit brings Scotland into line with most other European countries. As has already been stated, the Republic of Ireland is an example of good practice and of the benefits of the lower limit. A review of its policy that was published in December 2012 found that the number of arrests for drink driving between October 2011 and October 2012 had fallen compared with the 2010 statistics, which was the last calendar year in which the higher limit was in force. Drivers in the Republic of Ireland have adjusted their behaviour to take into account the lower limit. That evidence is encouraging and I hope to see the same reduction in Scotland.
I encourage all members to support the lower drink-driving limit as it will make our roads safer and save lives. Even with the lower limit, someone is still three times—three times—more likely to die in a crash than if they had taken no alcohol. The best advice that we can give—I am sure that many members have already said this—is for people to have no alcohol if they plan on driving. As has also been stated already, people need to remember that what they drink the night before is still in their system the next morning.
16:30
Reducing the drink-drive limit will make Scotland’s roads safer. We all know that alcohol affects a driver’s judgment and reaction times, and that the risk of having a road accident increases as more alcohol is consumed. However, we also know that Scotland and the United Kingdom have one of the highest drink-drive limits in Europe.
Sir Peter North, in his report for the UK Government in 2010, recommended a reduction in the drink-drive limit from 80mg to 50mg per 100ml, which would bring us into line with the vast majority of our European neighbours. It is the rejection of that recommendation by the current UK Government, coupled with the devolution of the power to set a specific limit for Scotland, that has led to this debate.
I make it clear at the outset that I support the reduction in the drink-drive limit, and that I discourage all forms of drink driving in the strongest possible terms. However, I believe that Labour’s amendment enhances the Government’s motion.
In his report, Sir Peter North explained—as Richard Lyle stated—that drivers with a blood alcohol concentration between 20mg and 50mg per 100ml have a greater risk of dying—at least three times the risk—in a road traffic accident than drivers who have no alcohol in their blood at all.
The risk of having a fatal accident increases by at least six times with a blood alcohol concentration between 50mg and 80mg per 100 ml, and then to 11 times between 80mg and 100mg per 100 ml. In other words, alcohol increases the risk of a fatal accident exponentially, and there is a significant increase in risk above a blood alcohol concentration of 50mg per 100ml.
The report notes that there is a case for reducing the limit to 20mg per 100ml, which Sir Peter North argues would be consistent with a clear “Do not drink and drive” policy. However, he goes on to explain that only a minority of countries have such a limit, and that any policy that is viewed as too restrictive or inflexible could jeopardise the good will and public support that exist for strengthening drink-drive legislation.
The BMA has reminded us that the lowest drink-drive limits are the toughest to enforce. There are countries that have a drink-drive limit of zero, and yet there are circumstances in which people with a medical condition such as diabetes, or those who use a certain type of mouthwash, would register alcohol in their blood.
The recommendation that we should reduce the limit on blood alcohol concentration to 50mg per 100ml has proven to be popular not only in the chamber but beyond with the public, the police and road safety campaigners. It is a practical proposal, it is enforceable and it will save lives.
There is broad agreement that the coming change must be communicated effectively to the public before it comes into force on 5 December. Thirty-two responses to the Scottish Government’s consultation emphasised the need to educate drivers about changes to the drink-drive limit, and 13 identified the need to educate people about the lingering morning-after effects of alcohol.
It takes longer than people often think for alcohol to pass through their body. People who would never countenance drink driving might not realise how much alcohol remains in their system the morning after a night out. They could find that their reaction times are slow, and if they were stopped by the police they might find that they have broken the law.
We need to do more than educate drivers to know their limits and know their units. We need to change behaviour and prevent people from getting behind the wheel of a car in the morning when there could still be enough alcohol present in their system to take them over the limit.
I acknowledge the new public awareness campaign that was launched this week, but I appeal to the Government for assurances that the attempts to educate motorists will be robust and proactive and will continue beyond the festive season.
With a new drink-driving limit I hope that we can prevent needless accidents, injuries and deaths on Scotland’s roads. We can make people think more about how much they drink before they drive, and send out a clear message that it is safest not to drink at all before getting behind the wheel. With education and enforcement, we can make Scotland’s roads safe, and I believe that we must.
16:34
The drink-driving limit is an important subject, and no more so than at this time of year. As has been well discussed today, the consequences of drink driving can be traumatic not only for individuals who are involved in accidents, but for those who are left behind. As the cabinet secretary said, social attitudes change. Just as, as a society, we know that people taking on board the dire effects of smoking led to a change in public attitudes, I believe that the overwhelming majority of the public share the views of those who participated in the Government’s consultation on drink driving. Drink driving not only causes trauma and costs lives, but impacts on an already stretched health service. Therefore, as other members have done, I welcome the proposals.
We have heard a lot today about the morning after. I agree with members who said that it should be a key theme of public education campaigns, especially at this time of year. Chief Superintendent Murray said in evidence to the Justice Committee that 10 per cent of detections in last winter’s drink-driving campaign were made after 6 o’clock in the morning. We also heard good evidence from Dr Rice. I particularly liked his straightforward comment that
“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”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 October 2014; c 43.]
We all need to apply common sense. Someone who is out at an office party until 1 in the morning should not assume that they will be fit to drive or function by breakfast time. As others have said, they should use public transport or—better still—walk.
I welcome the general thrust of the regulations. Scotland needs to be in the mainstream of Europe. Only Malta and England and Wales seem likely to stick with the 80mg limit, and I note with interest the new 20mg limit in Northern Ireland for learner and novice drivers. To be frank, I am baffled about why the UK Government can agree to that provision in Northern Ireland but will not allow the Scottish Government and Parliament even to consider the prospect.
The Justice Committee did, of course, discuss that issue in its evidence-taking session. Chief Superintendent Murray expressed the view that to increase the limit for younger drivers from 20mg to 50mg, perhaps after they have held a licence for two years, would send out the wrong message, whereas Dr Rice suggested that the BMA would favour such an approach. The evidence on the issue is finely balanced.
Margaret Dekker of Scotland’s Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers suggests that there should be a lower limit for professional drivers such as taxi drivers, school bus drivers and anyone who drives in a care capacity. Hanzala Malik referred to that. The idea has much to commend it, although it was rejected by the North review. I agree with that review, however, on the need to review after five years the impact of a new prescribed limit in relation to young and novice drivers and, at that point, to consider again a reduction to 20mg for such drivers if the evidence suggests that the anticipated reduction in casualty figures for them has not materialised.
As the Cabinet Secretary for Justice indicated in evidence to the Justice Committee, Scotland does not at present have powers over random breath testing, even if the police would like us to have them. As has already been made clear today, whatever the merits of an approach to disqualification that would allows courts not to automatically disqualify drivers who are convicted of driving with levels of between 50mg and 80mg—or for that matter between 20mg and 50mg—this Parliament does not currently have those powers. At the risk of being accused of raising the constitutional issue again, I note that the distinction between limits and penalties is something that the public will find increasingly difficult to understand. It is increasingly difficult to accept that we should be in charge of one but not the other.
I welcome the proposals and I hope that the public education campaign will be a success and that we can look forward to a reduction in road casualties this Christmas. That would be a Christmas worth having.
We turn to closing speeches. I call Alex Johnstone.
16:38
Anyone who is familiar with the works of Robert Burns, and in particular with “Tam o’Shanter”, will know about the difficulties that people face in managing their transport after they have had a skinful. Historically, taking a horse home is something that has happened recently in Scotland, where it was quite often the tradition that a farmer would go off to the mart and drink heavily at the end of the day’s work, after which somebody would tip him into his gig and his pony would take him home because it knew the way. Tradition dictates that such things happen. Perhaps the horse was the driverless car before such a thing had been invented.
Attitudes have changed, and motor vehicles have made it much more important that we address the issue. Drinking to excess and driving has been illegal since 1967, of course, but the message that we all need to be prepared to get out now is that it is not acceptable to drink any amount of alcohol before driving. We need a defined limit so that we can easily identify people who have crossed it and prosecute them effectively.
A number of issues have been thrown up during the debate. There are concerns about people who have drunk heavily and who may be surprised to discover that they are still under the influence the following day. That will require significant levels of education urgently if the limit is to be introduced on 5 December. Conservative members happily support that reason and the other reasons behind the Labour Party’s amendment.
On the Conservative Party’s amendment, we were very pleased at the reaction that we got from Kenny MacAskill at the start of the debate. The objective of our amendment is to introduce the idea that it may at some point in the future be possible—perhaps even necessary—to consider variable application of penalties. We should look at the situation that we find ourselves in with this legislation. Simply to take the penalties that are currently applied to people with 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood and apply them to those with 50mg is all well and good, but there is an argument that we should consider for the future whether those who have over 80mg or some other level should be penalised to a greater extent.
Similarly, we have spoken about the possibility of new powers that would allow us to consider lower or different limits for different people, at the lower end of the scale. It would be reasonable to have in advance a good understanding of the possibilities of variable penalties at that end of the scale, too.
We urgently need to understand what we are trying to achieve. We must enforce the drink-driving limit effectively, and it is possible to enforce the 50mg limit, but we must educate people so that they understand that they should not drink and drive.
A number of comments have been made that tell us what the real problem is. The minister spoke about a persistent minority who continue to drink and drive. We heard David Stewart talking about an individual who claimed in a blog, I think, to have driven after having drunk 18 pints. The reduction of the limit from 80mg to 50mg will not affect such individuals. We therefore have a challenge in front of us.
We have the opportunity to encourage people to take a much more responsible attitude. We need to ensure that we have a proper attitude to enforcement and that the resources are made available to ensure fair and effective enforcement.
I, too, give my backing to the cabinet secretary’s statement that we want fewer drink drivers, not more convictions. However, that perhaps contradicts the experience that past practices in, for example, policing speed on our roads, have perhaps led to an emphasis on catching those who are easiest to catch, and who are most likely to admit their guilt and accept their penalties, whereas others have tended to be treated less severely in enforcement.
Will Alex Johnstone take an intervention?
The member is just closing.
It is very important that we understand that the change will save lives, but it will raise questions. We must enforce and educate effectively, and ensure that resources are properly targeted in order to achieve the maximum effect from the change in the law. For that reason, we will support the amendments and the motion at 5 o’clock.
16:44
I commend David Thompson and David Stewart for the amount of work that they have done on road safety over the years.
Prior to the Road Safety Act 1967, it was a crime to be in charge of a car while unfit to drive through drink or drugs, but there was no reliable test for measuring whether a driver was unfit. In fact, it had been an offence for people to be drunk and in charge of carriages, horses, cattle or steam engines since 1872.
I am old enough to remember—I did not drive at the time—when the Minister for Transport in Harold Wilson’s Government, Barbara Castle, introduced the breathalyser to considerable public outcry. In fact, I remember a Christmas episode of “Steptoe and Son”, in which Harold was breathalysed while drunk in charge of Hercules, and then poured opprobrium on the transport minister for introducing the breathalyser. I hope that there is no such public reaction against Mr MacAskill or the Parliament when we pass the legislation.
The combination of the introduction of the first approved breathalyser and the Government-run advertising campaign reduced the United Kingdom’s percentage of road traffic accidents in which alcohol was involved from 25 to 15 per cent—a reduction of 1,152 deaths—in the breathalyser’s first year. That shows how bad it was at the time, but it also shows how legislation can have a good effect. The latest statistics in 2011 indicate that 230 people died in alcohol-related accidents across the United Kingdom. That is 230 people too many.
As the cabinet secretary said, public attitudes to drink driving have changed. Driving after having drunk alcohol was, prior to the Road Safety Act 1967, fairly normal practice. Indeed, the limits in the act appear to condone driving after moderate drinking. It still is possible—for the time being—to go to the pub for an evening and drink a couple of pints and, as Richard Lyle said, not be over the legal alcohol limit. That must no longer be the message that we put out.
Fifty years on from the first advert proclaiming the hazards of drink driving it is timely that the limit is being reconsidered. In 1967, the UK may have been ahead of other countries, but as others have said, we are now behind them: the limit in the majority of European countries is now 50mg per 100ml and in some it is 20mg.
We agree that it is time that Scotland caught up. The former UK Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Adonis, commissioned Sir Peter North’s review—which Richard Simpson and Margaret McCulloch mentioned—to consider the case for changing the drink-driving limit in the United Kingdom. He concluded that the limit should be 50mg. His evidence suggested, as others have said, that an accident involving a driver with 80mg alcohol per 100ml blood was six times more likely to result in death than one involving a driver who had drunk no alcohol.
It is curious that the UK Government refused to act on Lord North’s recommendations. However, I am pleased that the devolution of the power to alter the drink-driving limit in the Scotland Act 2012 has given this Parliament, once again, the power to take the lead in the UK—as we did with the ban on smoking in public places—and to bring down the limit to 50mg.
Instead of driving after consuming a small amount of alcohol continuing to be permissible, the message has to be that people should not drink at all if they are intending to drive. Many drivers take that approach. I have spoken to my three children—they are adults and they all drive—who would not even dream of having a drink before driving. We want to encourage that to be the normal approach.
Educating drivers about the changes is vital and it needs, as our amendment says, to make drivers aware of effects the next day; this is an opportunity to remind drivers that they must remember that alcohol can still be in their system the day after drinking. People have various remedies for drinking too much, including drinking fizzy drinks made from iron girders, but none of those remedies work—as others have said. It is especially important at this time of year that, when festive nights out might involve heavier drinking than normal or late night or early morning drinking as workmates go to the pub and then on to meals or night clubs, drivers need to think about what they have consumed and when before taking out the car the following day.
As members can see, I am a fairly small female—I weigh about 50 kilograms. I did an experiment with my partner, who is a lot bigger than me. We bought a breathalyser and, in the safety of our home, we monitored how quickly our blood alcohol concentrations went up and came back down again. For people my size, the concentration goes up faster, so they stop drinking or slow down sooner. However, they process the alcohol at the same rate and it gets out of their system faster. The lesson for larger people is that although they may be able to drink more, the alcohol will stay in their system for longer, so they need to be careful the next day. A person may feel fine but not be capable of driving.
The lesson needs to get out that, irrespective of how good a person feels—they may not have a hangover; they may feel fine—they may not be capable of driving. People, especially at this time of the year, need to think about that.
I have difficulty with the Conservative amendment and cannot support it, because I think that its interpretation is difficult. If we say that
“the application and penalties ... should be proportionate”
it sounds as if we are saying that the way in which sheriffs and Police Scotland act should be proportionate to the amount that people have had to drink, which might be interpreted as meaning that Police Scotland and sheriffs should take a more lenient attitude to people who fall between the 50mg and 80mg limits. That would muddy the waters. If the Government chooses to support the amendment, we will certainly not vote against the amended motion. However, I think that the Conservative amendment puts out a mixed message and suggests that some kind of proportionate response will result from our bringing down the drink-driving limit.
We have to be clear and we must not dilute the message that the legislation is intended to convey. That message is that it is not safe to drink and drive; that people who will be driving should not drink anything at all; and that those who were drinking the night before—in particular at this time of year, when people drink more and drink later—must think about what they have had to drink, and should not, if there is any chance that they could still be over the limit the next day, go out and drive.
As I said, there are machines that we can buy that test our blood alcohol content, so if there is any chance that a person is over the limit—or indeed might show anything over a low reading—they should test themselves, so that if there is any alcohol in their system they do not drive. If we are to improve our country’s road safety record, we need to take the issue very seriously. We need to get the lesson out to the public that the days of driving with alcohol in one’s system are no more.
16:51
This has been a remarkably consensual debate, in the main. We expect no less when we are talking about lives that have been lost and lives that we seek to save.
For that reason, and notwithstanding Elaine Murray’s point, we accept the spirit of the Tory amendment. The Government has given a clear assurance that although we seek the devolution of more powers and are prepared to consider points that Hanzala Malik, Richard Simpson and other people have made, which I will come to, we see no basis on which the reduction from 80mg to 50mg would ever lead to a variation in the mandatory disqualification period of one year—or longer, for subsequent offences or depending on the circumstances of the first offence.
We accept the spirit of the Labour Party’s amendment and agree that there must be an information campaign. I hope to assure members that that can be done. Equally, there perhaps needs to be further focus, and we welcome that.
I am still somewhat confused. I heard what the cabinet secretary just said and what he said in his opening speech about the Conservative amendment, but neither of the Conservative Party speakers could properly explain the amendment. I have read it again to ensure that I am not making a mistake. It says that
“the ... penalties imposed should be proportionate”,
but neither speaker could say clearly what that means. I remain very concerned about the implications of the Conservative amendment.
I am satisfied that our judiciary imposes proportionate sentences. If a sentence is thought to be disproportionate, we have an appellate court and, ultimately, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission—which I think would be invoked very rarely in the context of a drink-driving offence. I am happy to accept the spirit of the amendment, although I thought that some of the Conservatives’ comments about the attitudes and actions of the police were rather begrudging.
This is about saving lives. Significant progress has been made and Scotland’s roads are safer as a result of a variety of factors that have been brought into play by Governments north and south of the border. Attitudes have changed.
However, it is important that we remember that alcohol-impaired drivers cause their own deaths and the deaths of their passengers and other road users, including people who were just minding their own business. As I recall, last year’s Christmas road traffic awareness campaign featured a woman who had lost her husband. Her children had seen their father slain when a driver slewed across the road and hit him. The victim was a pedestrian. He was not on the road; he was walking home after a night out, minding his own business, when a driver who was impaired by alcohol lost control and took his life, making his wife a widow and causing his children to lose their father. It is about saving the lives of not just people on the road but pedestrians, who frequently suffer.
As Graeme Pearson and Richard Lyle mentioned, attitudes have changed, understandably and appropriately. Looking back, I see that the attitudes of my friends and perhaps even my own attitude have firmed up and changed over the years. However, it is not just attitudes that have changed. Roads have changed significantly since 1967 and traffic is significantly heavier, meaning that the consequences of a moment’s inattention can be much greater now than they were all those years ago. The power and capacity of vehicles is also significantly greater. I have a vehicle with a 1,200cc capacity, and the power, speed and acceleration of the car that I have in 2014 are significantly greater than those of an engine of a much greater capacity all those years ago. The world has changed and we need to change with it.
I give Margaret Mitchell the assurance that the police will provide the same resources. I do not know of any officer who goes round seeking to meet targets or to climb lists. I know of officers who themselves have been traumatised, and I do not know a police officer who does not take drink-driving seriously. They see the consequences and have to report the bad news to the families, so they, more than anybody, are aware of the action that must be taken.
Nevertheless, I accept that we should go further. Ireland lowered its limit, as members from all sides of the chamber have said. However, when Ireland lowered its limit from 80mg to 50mg, it added a further limit of 20mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood for specified drivers—this echoes Dave Stewart’s point—meaning learner drivers, those who have recently passed their test and those who drive in a professional capacity such as bus and truck drivers. In Scotland, train drivers, ferry operators and plane pilots have a limit of 35mg, but that is not regulated by the Scottish Government; it is reserved to Westminster. The only power that we have is the power to lower the drink-driving limit, and that is what we have done. When we get other powers, we will look to replicate what has happened in Ireland.
The Road Safety Authority in the Republic of Ireland undertook a review of the lower drink-driving limits in the year following their introduction and found that, notwithstanding the lower drink-driving limits that were introduced in October 2011, the total number of arrests for drink driving had fallen slightly. I think that that happened because—this touches on something that Elaine Murray talked about—the campaign hammered home the message that people should not risk drink driving. The chief executive of the Road Safety Authority, Noel Brett, commented:
“Since 2007, the number of drivers being detected driving under the influence of alcohol has more than halved. Clearly, the introduction of Random Breath Testing in July 2006 and the lowering of the Drink Drive Limits in October of 2011 have been the principal factors behind this drop.”
We do not have the ability to set graduated limits or, indeed, the 20mg and 50mg limits that Ireland has, nor do we have random breath testing. I say to Christine Grahame that the police can stop any car but they cannot randomly breath test unless they have a suspicion that alcohol has been consumed. That is why they ask the driver to open the window. It may be a moot or tautological point, but I think that random breath testing has a place. It has certainly worked in the Republic of Ireland, and I think that the Scottish Parliament should have the power to introduce random breath testing if it wished to do so.
The experience in the Republic of Ireland was that people got the message that they should not drink and drive—that they could not have even two drinks, as Richard Lyle mentioned. However, there are still those who go out to a Christmas party and think that if they stay for the meal they can have a glass of wine and that if they stay for the dance they can have another drink and—lo and behold—they then get into the car.
There is an appropriate argument about the situation the morning after, but the police have been driving home the message about that in recent years. There was a time when nobody gave any consideration to what the situation would be the following morning. However, over recent years, the police have been driving home the message that if people are out drinking—whether at a Christmas party or at any other time of the year—they should make alternative arrangements for the following day. I give members an assurance that we have an appropriate advertising campaign that will run beyond the Christmas/hogmanay period and that we will ensure that those who contemplate driving the following day are aware of their responsibilities behind the wheel of a vehicle.
I end as I started, by paying tribute to Dave Thompson. Some members have the privilege of introducing a member’s bill. Because the matter is reserved, we have not been able to do that in this case, so it is being dealt with by subordinate legislation. It is, nevertheless, the political equivalent of a member’s bill introduced by Dave Thompson, who, since he became a member of this Parliament, has campaigned ceaselessly to lower the drink-driving limit. He has made Scotland a safer place. [Applause.]