Drink Driving
Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S3M-3125, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on drink driving. I invite all members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. Any members who do not wish to speak in the debate would also be welcome to press their request-to-speak buttons, as we have a lot of time available for the debate. I am happy to give every member at least a minute extra if they want to take it. I call Mr MacAskill to speak to and move the motion in his name. Mr MacAskill, you have quite a bit of time.
Anybody who saw "Police, Camera, Action!" last night will be all too aware of the tragedies that occur as a consequence of drink driving, and of the delusions that some people have regarding the amount of alcohol that they can consume before it becomes unsafe for them to drive.
It continues to be the case that one in nine road deaths in Scotland is caused by drink driving. Behind that stark and simple statistic are families and communities that have been devastated by the deaths of loved ones. Last year, during the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland's festive campaign to tackle drink and drug driving at Christmas, 839 drivers were arrested for numerous drink-driving or drug-driving offences. That means that 839 drivers in Scotland took a chance and drove while they were over the limit or incapacitated and that 839 drivers were willing to risk causing death and injury on our roads—and those were only the ones who were caught. That is clearly unacceptable.
The majority of Scotland's citizens recognise that drink driving is dangerous and deplorable, but too many people still die every year on our roads as a result of drivers being over the limit. If we want our communities to be safer and stronger, we must tackle drink driving as being the cause of too many injuries, collisions and deaths. The current drink-driving limit has been in place for more than 40 years, but Scotland, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is now a very different place. Our laws have rightly evolved and adapted to reflect the changing society in which we live. Although the number of deaths and injuries on our roads has declined since the limit was set, that limit is now outdated and unfit for purpose.
Scottish Government research that was published this year 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 limit. Some of the confusion is not simply down to individuals. Glasses of wine may now contain substantial volumes, and beer that is sold in public houses and elsewhere often has a higher alcohol content than it did in the past. In addition, cars are faster and roads are busier than they were in the past. All those factors make drink driving significantly more dangerous. Research indicates clearly that the number of deaths from drink driving is slowly coming down, but still too many people are dying or being seriously hurt on our roads.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport on 12 March, outlining the Scottish Government's support for a reduction in the drink-driving limit from 80mg to 50mg per 100ml of blood and for the police to be given the power to carry out random breath tests at the side of the road. Those would be life-saving measures, so we have continued to put pressure on the UK Government to make those changes. It is not a new issue: in a 1998 consultation paper, figures that were produced by the Department for Transport suggested that reducing the blood alcohol limit to 50mg could prevent 50 deaths and 250 serious injuries throughout the UK every year.
The cabinet secretary mentioned random breath testing. Will he make it absolutely clear that support for the motion does not imply support for random breath testing?
The motion is quite clear. As Mr Rumbles correctly points out, we are dealing simply with the matters that are before us. For factual accuracy, however, I point out that my letter referred to two matters.
Recently, academics from University College London have suggested that as many as 65 fatalities a year in the UK could be prevented by a reduction such as I suggest.
In July this year, the UK Government's chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, stated publicly that the limit for drivers aged between 17 and 20 years old should be cut to zero.
The British Medical Association Scotland has said:
"Lives could be saved simply by reducing the drink-driving limit. There is evidence that driving is impaired with a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) level of over 50mg/100ml and it's estimated that around 65 lives could be saved in the UK by lowering the drink drive limit."
The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has said:
"Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom are among a small group of European nations that have still not lowered the blood alcohol count. Too many motorists are ignoring the law and continue to drive after drinking. We need to look at lowering the limit to tackle one of the major reasons for loss of life on our roads."
The Automobile Association announced earlier this year that 70 per cent of 14,000 members who were polled favour a reduction in the limit, and the 2007 report of the European Transport Safety Council demonstrated that, in the past 10 years, the nations with the lowest blood alcohol limits have had the greatest success in tackling drink driving.
Does the cabinet secretary accept that the blood alcohol concentration level of 80mg per 100ml is arbitrary, and that a level of 50mg per 100ml is also arbitrary? If so, does he accept that, if we want to prevent people from drink driving, that level must be nil, or as close to nil as can be legitimately measured?
I accept that any limit is arbitrary. The Government's argument is that the level of 80mg per 100ml has now passed its sell-by date. A zero level has difficulties because alcohol stays in the bloodstream for a long time. The level of 50mg per 100ml is a European norm, and we believe that adopting that level would drive home the message that there is no safe or tolerable level, and that the idea that someone can safely have two pints of beer or two glasses of wine is false. We hope not only to save people's lives on the road, but to ensure that people can avoid the tragic consequences of being arrested for drink driving.
Does the minister accept that, in these days of cross-Europe travel, there is a compelling case for a standard level across Europe?
Absolutely. We have made it quite clear that we would welcome an across-the-UK reduction to the European standard—it is not a constitutional matter. However, we believe that, if the Government south of the border does not wish to head in that direction, we should have the opportunity to follow the European norm. I accept that there are good reasons for harmonisation and standardisation across Europe. Our proposal to have a level of 50mg per 100ml takes us some way towards that. The UK, Ireland and—I think—Malta are out of kilter with the rest of Europe, which has a safer standard.
Does the minister recognise that the European norm for penalties for drink driving is much less than the norm in the UK?
We are not in favour of varying the current penalties. Mr Rumbles asked about random breath testing: as I said, the motion does not address that and the Government has a different perspective on it. Today's motion relates to the blood alcohol level.
We believe that the current sanctions are appropriate and that sheriffs have the right to act appropriately. I have disagreements with some people on mandatory sentencing—although, I believe that Mr Aitken is in tune with me on that matter—but I accept that there are good reasons why we have mandatory sentences for drink driving. It is appropriate that people who are caught drink driving lose their licences—unless there is a medical reason for alcohol being present in their blood—and that if the person is caught drink driving again within the following 10 years, the sentence should be a minimum of three years, as is the current position, I think.
Paul Martin seems to be suggesting that Europe is benign in relation to drink driving. It is true that some jurisdictions take that approach, but anyone from this country who thinks that they can safely drive under the influence of alcohol in a Scandinavian nation will find that they will be treated significantly more severely there than would be the case in the United Kingdom.
The UK was one of only five European countries to record an increase in drink-driving-related deaths in the period that was covered in the ETSC report. It is clear that there is massive support in Scotland and across the UK for a reduction in the limit, and evidence from other countries suggests that the lower limit that we are proposing saves lives.
A driver's reaction times and motoring skills deteriorate after even a small amount of alcohol. Those of us who saw the programme that I referred to earlier will have heard people repeating the old adage that drinking makes them drive better: obviously, the clear scientific and medical evidence is that that is total bunkum. There is clear substantiation that a lower limit will reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries that are caused by drink driving. That is why we are pursuing the lower limit.
In November, the UK Government published the "Road Safety Compliance Consultation". Although the consultation raises some discussion of the reduction of the drink-driving limit, it does not ask directly whether the drink-driving limit should be lowered. My colleague Stewart Stevenson, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport expressing our disappointment that the UK Government has been so unwilling to engage on the question of a lower limit.
I am surprised that the cabinet secretary says that the UK Government's consultation does not refer to the alcohol limit for driving. I have the summary here, and it asks:
"What priority do you think should be given to a change in the prescribed alcohol limit for driving?"
That is very clear.
If Bill Butler checks the Official Report, he will find that in regard to a reduction my words were:
"it does not ask directly whether the drink-driving limit should be lowered."
I did not say that the limit was not mentioned—I said that the consultation did not pose the specific challenge that we have to address.
To suggest that the drink-driving limit should be increased seems to be utterly absurd. I would be bemused if Bill Butler or any of his colleagues were to suggest that we should make it okay for people to drink more before they get behind the wheel. The specific question is this: "Do you want to lower the limit or do you not?" We, as a Government, certainly want to lower it. There has been a wasted opportunity to respond to the widespread and growing consensus in favour of a change. Just how much more evidence does the UK Government need?
On that point—
Bill Butler has had his say.
The UK Government must stand up and recognise the strength of evidence and the strength of feeling in favour of a reduction in the limit. It should not continue to sidestep or delay. The matter is not about the constitution or about a constitutional battle—it is about saving lives on our roads. The position that I have set out is that of not only the Scottish Government, but of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the British Medical Association. We in Scotland are ready to make the change and to reduce the limit. We would welcome support from anywhere else.
Although the safest option for drivers must be not to drink and drive, a 50mg limit would be a simpler message for drivers and drinkers to understand. Lowering the limit will also bring us into line with most other nations in Europe.
I hope that the cabinet secretary will cite any evidence he has that switching from 80mg to 50mg, as opposed to approximately zero, will be easier to understand.
I have cited a substantial amount of evidence from ACPOS, the BMA and Sir Liam Donaldson—Dr Simpson can check the Official Report. As I stated in response to Mr Adam, the limits are arbitrary. One could set a zero limit, but we are persuaded that that would have unwanted consequences because of the length of time for which alcohol stays in the bloodstream. A 50mg limit is the accepted norm in Europe and is supported by ACPOS, the BMA and a broad range of other reasonable opinion in this country. It triggers a message that people cannot have two pints or two glasses of wine—or sometimes a bit more because they have had a Christmas dinner at the staff outing. That is why we believe that reducing the limit to 50mg is the correct thing to do.
If evidence emerges that the limit needs to be lower and that other nations go down that route, we will be happy to follow. It is clear that the 80mg limit is now past its sell-by date, is jeopardising lives and is not delivering safety on our roads. We need action rather than another discussion document from the UK Government.
The direction in which we are heading is part of a wider Government agenda regarding Scotland's relationship with alcohol. We have 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. The cost of alcohol abuse is damaging us in Scotland and we must tackle it.
As we have often stated, the Government is not anti-alcohol, but we are anti-alcohol misuse. The stark truth is that our relationship with alcohol is holding us back as individuals and families, as communities and as a nation. The statistics, which we have presented on many occasions, are breathtaking.
Many of us experience the effects of alcohol-related violence and antisocial behaviour in our communities, and almost half of prisoners report being drunk at the time of their offence. We have to dispel the myth that alcohol-related harm affects only people with chronic alcohol dependency, or so-called binge drinkers. It is not a marginal problem. The uncomfortable truth is that many people—probably many of us in the chamber—fall into that category. Up to 50 per cent of men and 30 per cent of women regularly drink more than the amount that is specified in guidelines on sensible drinking. Those people place themselves at increased risk of being involved in accidents, becoming the victims or, tragically, the perpetrators of crime, contributing to family break-ups, and developing cancer or liver disease. That is why we believe that there must be a change and why the Government has committed to a consultation on the issue, the responses to which we will publish in due course.
Respondents, including ACPOS, generally welcome the Scottish Government's stance and support tightening the laws on drink driving, especially to reduce the legally acceptable blood alcohol level. I say to Dr Simpson that several health organisations went further and called for a zero-tolerance approach to drink driving, especially for young people under 25. We do not preclude such measures and will be happy to consider them, but as a first and interim step we need to reduce the limit to 50mg.
The responses to the discussion documents are being analysed, and we will announce the way forward early in the new year. Early next year we will also publish a 10-year road safety strategy for Scotland. My colleague Stewart Stevenson has convened a road safety expert panel to advise on measures for the strategy. We have also consulted groups of young people aged 17 to 25—the age group that we know is particularly vulnerable on our roads. Action must be taken—that is why we believe that the time for consultation has ended.
The annual ACPOS festive campaign is an important weapon in the fight against drivers who still think that it is acceptable to drink and drive. We are committed to improving the safety of people on our roads and are delighted to support ACPOS in all its campaigns, particularly on drink and drug driving, which is why we are happy to accept the Conservative amendment. Drug driving is more difficult to analyse, but it is a serious and growing problem that must be addressed by whatever means are at our disposal. we hope that the campaign will help us to realise a further drop in the number of people who are killed or injured as a result of drink or drug driving, and to remove from the driving population those who are responsible. I send my best wishes and thanks to the police officers who are out on the roads over the festive period, working to ensure our safety.
I move,
That the Parliament expresses concern that one in nine road deaths in Scotland is related to drink driving; calls on the UK Government to reduce the 80 mg limit, which was set over 40 years ago, to a 50 mg limit in line with much of Europe; wishes Scotland's police forces success with their campaign over the festive season, and sincerely hopes that no one has their Christmas and New Year destroyed by those who choose to ignore the anti-drink-driving message.
Over the past year, Scotland's relationship with alcohol has been at the heart of debates here, and rightly so. Over the festive period, people across Scotland will enjoy a drink at a host of celebrations. It does not benefit our approach to come across as being solely puritanical, so we should acknowledge that social drinking is part of this time of year, as people enjoy a well-earned break. However, we must also acknowledge—not only during the festive season but throughout the year—that too often it becomes evident that in Scottish society we have not got the balance right between sociable drinking and drinking irresponsibly to excess. It is a huge challenge to change what has become a real cultural problem in Scotland. Drink driving is an area in which that problem can have its most devastating impact.
Drink driving is also one of the areas in which real progress has been made, because the vast majority of people are acutely aware of the dangers of drink driving and its potential consequences. Over the years, there has been a significant change of attitude on the issue. The British Medical Association briefing for the debate tells us that in the past 10 years the estimated number of drink-driving accidents has fallen by 16 per cent and the number of casualties by 18 per cent. However, that decline is not reflected in the number of fatalities, which remains at an average of 50 deaths per year on Scotland's roads—the same number as 10 years ago. The impact of every fatality is devastating and every fatality is a needless waste of life, which makes it all the more important for us to bring about reductions in these most depressing of statistics.
The Government motion is right to point out that there can be no room for complacency. The statistic that is quoted in the motion—
"that one in nine road deaths in Scotland is related to drink driving"—
places stark emphasis on that point. It is understandable that a significant body of opinion is pressing for a reduction in the permissible level of blood alcohol while driving and is making extremely persuasive arguments on the point. Parliament should take those arguments seriously; clearly, ministers have already been persuaded that the 80mg limit should be reduced to a 50mg limit.
Parliament has a crucial role to play in our police forces having successful campaigns against drink driving—locally and across Scotland—by ensuring that they are given the right resources to enforce the limits that are in place. I know that the Scottish Government supports the Road Safety Scotland campaign and its "Don't risk it" message. We could have a whole separate debate on police resources, but the drink-driving limit is reserved to Westminster and our party views it as sensible to have consistency across the UK on the matter. I hope that, on this most important of issues, we can get beyond stoking up constitutional debate, with ministers here seeking to set themselves in opposition to their Westminster counterparts. Surely it is more important to seek consensus.
I do not wish to get involved in a constitutional debate on this point. Will Richard Baker give us his view on whether the current limit should go down and if so to what level?
I am coming directly to that point. Mr Adam has already made an interesting contribution on that issue in an earlier intervention. I am concerned about the Scottish Government's positioning on the constitutional issue. I am puzzled that, when the issue was raised at last week's First Minister's questions, the First Minister pointedly expressed disappointment
"that the ‘Road Safety Compliance Consultation' document, which was published on 20 November, did not include a direct question on lowering the drink-driving limit."—[Official Report, 11 December 2008; c 13349.]
That is not accurate. I sincerely hope that the First Minister, while not seeking to create an unnecessary division on the issue—
Will the member take an intervention on that issue?
I will make some progress first.
I have with me the "Road Safety Compliance Consultation" document, from the Department for Transport. On the first page of the document, in the executive summary—we do not have to look too far—it invites views on five issues, the second of which is drink driving. Only a little further down that page, paragraph 12 says that
"There have been calls for some years for a lower limit of 50 mg/100 ml, or less. We have said that we will keep the limit under review."
That is discussed in the context of a lower limit.
The consultation goes on to ask respondents for answers on the direct questions:
"what priority they think should be given to a change in the prescribed alcohol limit for driving"
and
"what evidence they are able to offer—and what further evidence do they consider should be obtained—to support a fully-considered decision whether or not to change the limit."
I do not think that it could be much clearer than that. There is no need or room to create unnecessary divisions on such important points.
Will Mr Baker at least accept that that consultation document also states that the
"intention is to review the new evidence in the course of finalising our road safety strategy beyond 2010"?
In other words, whatever else can be said about that document, it is not a proposal for anything like immediate action on the matter.
The document does consider significant and speedy action on the matter in the light of evidence and consultation, which is the right way to form policy. Every Government needs to make key decisions on important issues of policy such as this on the basis of sound and clear evidence. We have heard that there is sound and clear evidence out there; the consultation provides an opportunity for that evidence to be heard and properly considered.
The best approach would be for Scottish Government ministers to engage constructively in the consultation with their UK counterparts and to make the case for a reduction in the level, for which I have sympathy. It is right, before making policies in such important areas, to engage fully in consultation, so I believe that the UK Government is right to do so. Scottish ministers may seek further views as they engage in the process. All the evidence should be examined carefully.
The fact that a 50mg limit exists in other parts of Europe is persuasive, but there is perhaps a case for a different limit, and even for a further reduction. Perhaps members will make different cases on this point. Brian Adam made an extremely pertinent intervention on the issue earlier, during the cabinet secretary's speech. It is a crucial point, which deserves constructive debate and consideration.
We are now seven minutes into your speech, and we have still not heard whether you favour a reduction. You have said that you are sympathetic to that, but you have not said whether you favour it or not. I have made my position clear, which is that the limit should be as close as possible to zero, although lowering the level to 50mg would be progress. What is your view, and what is your party in the Scottish Parliament's view?
I remind members that they must address all remarks through the Presiding Officer and should not refer to other members directly.
I am persuaded that a good case can be made for reducing the limit—my opinion tends in that direction. However, there is a consultation process in which all the evidence for, and implications of, setting a new limit will be considered. It would be better to have a lower limit, but action should be taken on the basis of all the evidence and proper and constructive engagement. I hope that the Scottish Government will engage constructively in the consultation, because the issue is of the greatest importance, although I am rather more depressed that it might not do so after having heard the speech from the Government benches. Perhaps the situation will improve during the debate. The issue is crucial and deserves constructive debate and consideration.
If we are to address drink driving, enforcement and education campaigns are crucial, not just at Christmas but throughout the year. In 2006, the Scottish Executive launched a Scotland-wide summer campaign to tackle drink driving. During the summer of this year, Grampian Police cracked down on drink driving in my region. It was disappointing that the police found 29 motorists who were driving under the influence of drink or drugs, although it was notable that in the second week of the crackdown the number of drink drivers halved. That demonstrates not only that drink driving is a problem all year round but that police campaigns make a difference. We expect the Scottish ministers to ensure that Scottish police forces are encouraged and resourced to engage in more targeted campaigns, which have a direct and constructive influence.
The appallingly high number of road fatalities in Grampian, particularly on rural roads, means that people in the area are conscious of wider issues of road safety. Last year on Grampian's roads, 37 people died, 14 of whom were under 25, and 233 people were seriously injured. Such figures have led to concerted local campaigns, for example in The Press and Journal, and local action, for example by Aberdeenshire Council, which supported the safe drive, stay alive campaign. Earlier this month, Alison McInnes, who is a member for North East Scotland, highlighted the high number of fatalities in our area during her members' business debate on young drivers.
It is right to consider wider issues of road safety, so that we can reduce the still far too high number of fatalities on Scotland's roads. I welcome the amendment in Bill Aitken's name, which acknowledges the problem of people who drive under the influence of drugs. During many recent drink-driving campaigns, the police have targeted such drivers, whose behaviour also causes horrific and fatal accidents. We will support the amendment.
I hope that the Scottish Government will support the amendments. The UK Government's road safety consultation presents the Scottish ministers with an opportunity to gather opinion from throughout Scotland on drink-driving limits, and to engage constructively with their UK counterparts so that evidence-based progress can be made. The cabinet secretary said that the debate is not about constitutional matters—as, of course, it should not be—but it strikes me that he and his colleagues are doing everything they can to make it so, which is regrettable and inappropriate.
There is an opportunity for consensus on a vital challenge that faces Scottish society and there is no doubt that members of all parties want effective action on drink driving. None of us wants to be a statistic in reports of lives that have been taken or devastated because of the actions of drink drivers. I sincerely hope that all drivers will heed the messages on drink driving so that during the festive season and the year to come people will be safer on Scotland's roads.
I move amendment S3M-3125.1, to leave out from "calls" to end and insert:
"recognises that the UK Government is currently consulting on road safety and related issues and that this includes an invitation for views on the current drink-driving limit; believes that a UK-wide approach on this issue is sensible; believes that Scottish ministers should engage constructively in the UK Government's consultation process, and believes that drink driving must be combated at all times of the year and that Scottish police forces must be properly resourced to ensure effective enforcement."
The cabinet secretary was correct to initiate a debate on drink driving, which is highly topical at a time of year when even those of us who are of a moderate disposition tend to drink more than we normally would. He was right to underline the tragic consequences of excessive drinking followed by driving. Particularly at this time of year, there have been horrendous incidents, in which people have been bereaved.
I will go some way down the route that the cabinet secretary is always keen to encourage by pointing out the good news. Members agree that a positive societal change has occurred in the past 20 to 30 years and that drink driving is less of a problem than it was. I will build on the figures that Richard Baker submitted. It is worth underlining the fact that, since 1996, the number of drink-driving accidents has decreased by 4 per cent. In drink-driving accidents, the number of casualties of all severities has decreased by 16 per cent and the number who have been killed has decreased by 40 per cent. The days when people with four or five pints in them got into a car and drove away in a cavalier manner have gone. However, a problem still exists with the irresponsible minority who require to be acted against most vigorously.
I am not totally persuaded that all the cabinet secretary's figures stand up to rigorous examination. He is correct to point out that in some European countries, the limit is 50mg. In Scandinavia, 20mg is the going rate. However, he was slightly disingenuous about disposals. Many European countries do not impose mandatory disqualification, whereas he and I agree that disqualification should be mandatory, except in special circumstances that might arise very occasionally, such as emergencies.
The fact is that the problem is decreasing. I accept that the recent report from the Highlands was depressing, particularly given the nature of the roads and the distances that are travelled there, but overall in Scotland, people are being much more responsible. The police, the Government and the public can be congratulated on that.
I generally accept what Bill Aitken says, but does he accept that the reduction in the problem has reached a plateau since the 1990s? The current concern is that we are making no further progress.
I question the figures slightly. I referred to figures from 1996 and I am more than happy to examine the numbers further, but the situation is certainly an awful lot better than it was 25 or 30 years ago. However, one death is too many.
The cabinet secretary and others have heard me adopt the theme before that the proper procedure is that enforcement is the answer. Under present legislation, the police are not allowed to perform random breath tests. That is appropriate, but practice has been somewhat different over the years. In Glasgow several years ago, the number of people who were breathalysed was well into five figures, but for minimal return. That was not justified under the law, but it had the appropriate deterrent effect, so the police probably thought that they were acting reasonably. However, they could leave themselves open to accusations of oppression by taking breath tests when no sufficient cause has been shown.
Does Bill Aitken accept that random testing applies in all European Union countries apart from the UK and Denmark? If it appears to work in all those countries, surely it would work here, too.
I accept that what Mr Thompson says is correct, but I do not accept that everything that other EU countries do is appropriate for us.
Drug driving is a most crucial issue on which the cabinet secretary and I have corresponded in the past year or so. He knows of my concerns, which I think he shares. As the drink-driving problem has eased, the drug-driving problem has increased. An experienced police officer told me recently his view that one in 10 drivers who leave Glasgow city centre after 2 am on clubbing nights is driving while impaired by drugs.
The police have a real difficulty. If someone is stopped on the suspicion of having been drinking, there is an indicative breath test that gives the police powers of arrest. The person concerned can be taken to a police office and asked to submit to a Camic breathalyser test, which gives an almost immediate result. The system for testing for drug driving is much more convoluted and complex, and requires a number of tests to be taken at the locus, including the Romberg test in which a driver has to estimate 30 seconds' passage of time. If the police believe that the person is driving while impaired, the person will be taken to a police office and the police surgeon must be summoned. The effect of that can be that a police traffic car is off the road for two hours.
We live in an age in which technology improves almost hourly, and I am astounded that no one has come up with a machine that can speedily test the blood of an individual to see whether they are driving with drugs in their bloodstream. I find it disappointing that, despite my own best efforts—and, in fairness, those of Mr MacAskill—we do not yet have from the UK Government confirmation that such a device will be forthcoming soon. The way things are going, the issue of drug driving will become much more concerning.
It is unusual for me to do this, but we should defend the UK Government on this issue because there are considerable technical difficulties, although I understand that there have been developments. There is equipment in development that will, instead of testing directly for a wide range of possible drugs, test for the effects and impairments that derive from drug misuse. In the long term, that may offer the best way of detecting people who are impaired by the wide—and possibly widening—range of drugs that are constantly coming into use.
As the minister said, it is most unusual for him to defend the Westminster Government, but I point out that the issue has been going on for far too long. In January, I wrote to the then chair of the ACPOS road traffic group, and was told that a consultation document had been prepared, that the procurement process would be taking place, and that we would by now have such a device in place. That simply has not happened, and it should have.
Drug driving is becoming a much greater threat to pedestrians and other road users than it was 10 or even five years ago, and action is necessary. It is on that basis that I lodged my amendment.
I move amendment S3M-3125.1.1, to leave out from third "believes" to end and insert:
"further recognises the growing problem of driving under the influence of drugs, and believes that drink and drug driving must be combated at all times of the year and that Scottish police forces must be properly resourced and be in possession of the appropriate technology to ensure effective enforcement."
I call Robert Brown to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. [Interruption.] I have been misinformed. I call Mr Finnie to open on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is an easy mistake to make. [Laughter.]
The Liberal Democrat policy position on drink driving wholly and unreservedly supports the lowering of the alcohol limit from 80mg to 50mg per 100ml of blood, so we support the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary.
The impairment effects of drinking alcohol are well set out in the briefing note from the BMA, and it is worth recalling their extent and nature. Drinking alcohol increases reaction time; increases stopping distances; reduces co-ordination; affects judgment of speed, time and distance; reduces field of vision and concentration; and can create overconfidence in the person at the wheel.
Although I accept in broad terms what has been said about the reduction in the incidence of drinking and driving, it is telling nonetheless that the figures show that the average number of deaths per year on Scotland's roads is 50, which is the same as it was 10 years ago. I accept, as Bill Butler pointed out, that the rate has fallen over time, but we cannot be entirely satisfied with the situation.
Mr Finnie might be perfectly correct in what he says, given the increases in road usage, the number of cars on the road and the number of miles driven by the average driver, but does he agree that, on any actuarial basis, it is surprising that fatalities have not also gone up?
I am not going to get into an actuarial argument with Mr Aitken. Given that cars and roads are supposed to be safer, I am not entirely certain that one can take only those simple facts and reach that conclusion. The important factor in those fatalities—the one link—is drinking and driving.
The Liberal Democrats are clear that reducing drink driving—and the resulting improvements in road safety—must be an integral part of a wider alcohol misuse strategy. I have at times joined in accusations that the Government is indulging in constitutional mischief. However, if reducing the drink-driving limit is seen as part of an integrated strategy for reducing alcohol misuse, it is perfectly proper for it to be discussed and debated in the chamber. If we were unable to do that, we would be leaving out a critical element of any alcohol misuse strategy. I therefore do not agree with Richard Baker's point in that regard.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take Richard Baker.
Does Ross Finnie agree that we did not say that the issue should not be discussed or debated in the chamber; we said that the important point was how work should be taken forward? Why cannot it proceed in a constructive and collaborative fashion? The opportunity exists for us to do that.
Strange and surprising though this may sound to members on the Labour benches, I found the cabinet secretary in remarkably constructive form this morning.
In their amendment, the Conservatives refer to drugs. Bill Aitken articulated and enunciated their position well, and gave the Liberal Democrats cause for thought. He is absolutely right that drug driving is an emerging and added problem—indeed, it might be an even greater problem than drink driving. However, Bill Aitken chose to lodge an amendment to the Labour amendment, and given that we cannot support the Labour amendment, we are unable to support the Conservative amendment. We cannot see a way in which it can be added to the Government motion.
At first glance, the Labour amendment appears attractive, as it states:
"the UK Government is currently consulting on road safety and related issues",
which
"includes an invitation for views on the current drink-driving limit"
and goes on to say that that appears "sensible". However, further consideration leads one to a different conclusion from that of Bill Butler or Richard Baker. The call that the amendment makes is odd and weak. It simply asks us to reflect on the priorities. What is the issue in all of that? If we are interested in containing drink driving, why make the focus of an amendment the setting out of priorities? The inference to be drawn from what Richard Baker said is that evidence is singularly lacking.
On that point—
I will make this point, after which I will let Mr Butler make his point.
In 1998, the House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities reported on blood alcohol levels for drivers. The committee gathered extensive evidence and concluded:
"The permitted BAC for drivers should be reduced from 80mg/100ml to 50mg/100ml".
As the cabinet secretary said, later that same year, the Government paper "Combating drink driving - next steps" concluded that reducing the level to 50mg/100ml could save 50 lives and 250 serious injuries per year.
In 2005, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, headed by emeritus professor Richard Allsop at the centre for transport studies at University College London, having reviewed all the evidence that was brought before it, concluded that lowering the level could be expected to lead to 65 fewer deaths and 250 fewer serious injuries. The council's conclusions were based on the 2003 road casualty figures. In 2006, a report on drinking and driving in Europe from the Global Alcohol Policy Alliance concluded:
"All drivers on European roads with a BAC level greater than 0.5 g/L should have an unconditional license suspension".
In 2008, the report "Reducing Drinking and Driving in Europe" by the German Centre for Addiction Issues, which was sponsored by the European Commission, concluded:
"A maximum blood alcohol concentration limit of 0.5 g/L should be introduced throughout Europe".
I am therefore puzzled that the UK Government seems to believe that no studies have been carried out and no evidence has been produced for the past 10 years. Indeed, one could suggest that it is wilfully ignoring all the evidence that has been produced in the past 10 years.
We should concentrate on the evidence that has been presented that changing the limit will affect the number of accidents and fatalities, and we should not pretend that just because sanctions are not uniform across Europe, that is an argument for doing nothing. It might be an argument for telling the European Commission that sentencing should be more uniform and based on what we do in the UK, where there is a serious mandatory sentence for breaching the blood alcohol limit. It is not an argument for doing nothing because the comparisons should not be made. The research does not make that point; it is clear that reducing the limit will lead to a reduction in the number of accidents and fatalities.
No one disagrees that there is a considerable body of evidence, but given that the ability to change the situation is reserved, would it not be more positive for us to say here today that there is a considerable body of evidence and to call on the UK Government to use the consultation to change the law? Would that not be more positive?
It would be difficult to construe the wording of the motion any differently. If the Parliament is saying that what is in the motion is what should be, anyone who reads it will be bound to conclude that that is our view, unless they have overindulged in the Christmas festivities. With all due respect, I repeat that there are times when the Government is quite mischievous, but we are being a bit precious this morning about the use of words, and pretending that this is a constitutional debate, not one about improving safety on our roads.
The message is clear and simple: there is evidence, and the UK Government should read the Official Report of this debate—I hope that it will—and take it into account. Also, I hope that it will then conclude long before 2010 that something needs to be done.
There is a substantial body of evidence to support the proposition. On that basis, the Liberal Democrats support the Government's motion. We regret that we are unable to accommodate the Conservatives' valid point because the Conservative amendment is an amendment to the Labour amendment, which we do not accept.
I am pleased to be taking part in this debate, because I have been campaigning for some time to have the drink-driving limit reduced from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg.
Since I started my campaign, I have received a growing amount of support from a wide range of bodies in Scotland, such as BMA Scotland, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, the Scottish Police Federation, Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems, Alcohol Focus Scotland, a number of councils, Cardinal O'Brien and, most recently, the Automobile Association, which has changed its position and now favours a reduction in the limit.
The current drink-driving limit was set more than 40 years ago and is long overdue for revision. Apart from the UK, only Malta, Luxembourg and Ireland still have a limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. When I first looked into the matter, I discovered that one in nine road deaths is caused by drink driving and that the Highlands and Islands suffer from a drink-driving rate that is 27 per cent higher than the national average.
Last week was the first week of a Christmas crackdown on people who drive while drunk. In Highland, police arrested 13 people for doing so, which is exactly the same as last year's figure. Those drink drivers included a 23-year-old disqualified driver who was arrested after refusing to do a breath test and a 45-year-old drink driver who was reported to the police by a member of the public.
As has been said, we seem to have reached a plateau. Around 7,000 drink-driving offences are committed in Scotland every year, although the figure dropped as low as 6,000 in 2000. It is worrying that the number of drink-driving offences is creeping up again. There is evidence that reducing the blood alcohol limit would have a major impact. Between blood alcohol levels of 50mg per 100ml of blood and 80mg per 100ml of blood, the crash risk rises exponentially. That is not my evidence; it is the evidence of the University of Oxford. Someone who has 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in their bloodstream is twice as likely to be involved in a crash as someone who has no alcohol in their bloodstream, but someone who has 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in their bloodstream is 10 times more likely to be involved in a crash than someone who has no alcohol in their bloodstream.
There is a great need to reinforce the message that drink driving is unacceptable and that even a small amount of alcohol can impair people's ability to drive. Reducing the limit to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood would do just that. A 50mg limit would mean that a small, 25ml measure of spirit, a half pint of ordinary beer with a strength of about 3.5 per cent—we should bear in mind the fact that most beers now have a strength of 5 per cent—or a small, 125ml glass of wine with a strength of 9 per cent would put someone over the limit. It is hard to find wine in the supermarkets the strength of which is less than 14 per cent. Having a 50mg limit would send a clear message that people should not drink and drive at all, because if they do—thanks to random testing—they will be caught.
There has been much discussion of the position of the UK Government, which has a mixed record on the issue. Before the 1997 election and again in 1998, the Labour Party announced that it intended to reduce the legal limit to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. The proposal was put out to consultation. The police, virtually the whole road safety community and public opinion all favoured lowering the limit. That was more than 10 years ago. However, in March 2000, the UK Government announced that it had decided not to lower the limit because it was awaiting possible moves to harmonise drink-driving limits in the European Union. In January 2001, the EU adopted a recommendation that proposed harmonisation of the drink-driving limit at 50mg or less, but it was not binding on member states, and in the following year the UK announced that it had no plans to change the limit. In recent years, several other EU countries, including France, Germany, Spain and Denmark, have listened to that advice and have reduced their limits to 50mg.
Subsequently, the second review of the Government's road safety strategy, which was published in 2007, stated:
"During this review, many stakeholders have advocated reducing the UK's blood alcohol limit from 80 mg to 50 mg. But the limit cannot be considered in isolation … We will keep under review the case for a reduction in the blood alcohol limit."
In June 2007, the road safety minister Stephen Ladyman offered some hope to those of us who want to reduce the limit when he said that the UK Government was again in favour of moving to a 50mg limit, but that it first wanted to see evidence that such a limit would be properly enforced by the police. Later in 2007, he said that the Government would publish a consultation paper to gauge public opinion on reducing the limit. No consultation paper appeared in 2007. I wrote to the Department for Transport in January and again in April, only to be told that it was pressing ahead with the consultation document and would give careful consideration to the views of interested parties in Scotland and elsewhere. We heard nothing until last month, when we found, once again, that the drink-driving limit was to be kept under review and that more time was needed to collect evidence. How many times does this matter need to be kept under review?
I must say that I do not recognise the document from which Bill Butler and other members have quoted. The consultation document, which I have with me, states clearly that "the limit" will be kept "under review", and sets out "steps to collect evidence". Moreover, the three questions in the drink-driving section on which views are sought do not mention the limit. Mr Butler and others must have a different document. I direct them to the relevant pages in the document that I have, which are, I think, 33 and 35.
That said, the fact that the issue has not been raised in the document does not mean that we cannot raise it or that the Parliament cannot take a strong view on reducing the limit. In that way, we can give the UK Government the benefit of our views and put some pressure on it.
I could not agree more. Does the member believe—as I believe, and as I will make clear in my speech—that, as UK citizens, all members should make a submission to the consultation, arguing for a lower limit?
Mr Butler will find that a lot of people and all sorts of organisations in Scotland have made many submissions and given plenty of evidence to the UK Government four, five, six or seven times already, advocating a reduction in the limit. It is time that the UK Government listened to those views and applied a limit to the whole of the UK. I make it clear that I am not advocating a limit for Scotland alone; I want a limit for the whole of the UK, because the lives of people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are just as important as the lives of people in Scotland.
However, the power rests with Westminster, and I hope that Labour members and others will change their views and agree that we should send Westminster a strong message that the limit needs to be changed. As I have said, the Westminster Government has prevaricated since 1997 and has changed its views almost every second year. It is time for it to look at the evidence that has already been submitted and to stick with the decision that it has made twice or three times already to reduce the limit to 50mg.
Dave Thompson has helpfully set out the history of the situation, which is an important aspect.
Before I begin my speech proper, I point out that, given that the Scottish Government has been quite good at discussing and trying to reach consensus with the Opposition on drug-related matters, it is a pity that there has been no similar offer of discussions on the alcohol policy in order to reach a common view. I recommend that the Government take that approach, because the issues are serious and are not on the whole party-political—although I acknowledge that the parties disagree on certain aspects.
The 80mg drink-driving limit was introduced in 1967 and it is clear that, since then, the measure has been extremely effective. I am just old enough to remember the situation before that change in the law. I recall as a student witnessing attempts to determine whether someone who was driving a car was inebriated. People were asked, for example, to walk a line heel to toe and to say the phrase "The Leith police dismithith us." I cannot even say it, and I am sober.
Failed! [Laughter.]
I should add that I was not partying last night; I have had no alcohol for the past three or four days. That demonstrates how difficult it is to say such a phrase if one does not have good enunciation skills.
There is also the perhaps apocryphal tale of the gentleman who offered to do a handstand and a cartwheel to show that he was not drunk. The police said that that would be absolutely fine, not knowing that the man was a circus artiste and was perfectly capable of such actions. Given that kind of very crude and inaccurate testing, the introduction of the blood test represented a very successful step forward. The new law, combined with much safer cars and improved roads, led to our having one of the best road safety records in Europe, in terms of a low number of fatalities. It is important to note that road safety here is much better than in many other places.
Interesting reviews and evaluations of drink-driving campaigns have demonstrated that the campaigns are getting through to some extent. In the six years to 2006, the number of people who reported ever having driven after drinking reduced from 55 per cent to 43 per cent; and, over the past year, the number has reduced from 37 per cent to 25 per cent. The campaigns are having some effect, but it is the case that 43 per cent of people had driven after drinking, which clearly is unacceptable. The whole generation before 1967, who regularly drank and drove, had to learn.
When I intervened during the cabinet secretary's speech, I did not want to ask about the evidence for reducing the figure from 80mg to 50mg. It is clear that such a reduction would have an effect, and I will come back to that point. The question that I was trying to ask was what is the evidence that reducing the figure will make people understand better that they should not drink and drive? It might simply make them say, "I will drink a certain amount."
Drink drivers fall into three groups: borderline drinkers, who try to judge how much to consume; heavy drinkers, either regular, binge, or one-off at a party drinkers; and the morning-after group, who do not realise that the amount that they drank the night before renders them liable to be above the limit.
It is the borderline drinkers whom I want to consider. If the level is set at 50mg—there is good evidence that that would have a significant effect—we will be back here in a few years' time saying that we will have to reduce it again. Like the cabinet secretary today, we will say that it is past its sell-by date.
Given what he has said, would the member be in favour of a reduction to 50mg—or less?
I will come back to that point, but I am in favour of a reduction. With my medical hat on, I absolutely support the BMA's position on this.
As I was saying, my concern is that individuals will continue to take risks. The issue is problematic. We cannot reduce the level to zero, because people might be on cough medicines or might take liqueur sweets. Liqueurs can also be used in food preparation. There are all sorts of reasons why a small amount of alcohol might get into people's blood. Neither a zero level—in absolute testing terms—nor a level of 50mg or 80mg has any particular merit, although we must consider Dave Thompson's point that the more people drink, the more likely they are to have a problem and to be unsteady. Studies are done on groups of people, but individual tolerances can be quite different.
The member may be aware that, in aviation, the limit is 20mg, with the additional requirement that no drinking take place in the eight hours before committing aviation. Does the member approve of the aviation level—which, functionally, approaches zero? Would he fly with a pilot whose level was 80mg?
Mr Stevenson makes his point very well. We need debate and effective consultation, although I agree that consultation should not go on and on and on.
I will be recommending to the UK Government that it consider carefully the report from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists called "Alcohol Policy: Using evidence for better outcomes", which is a most authoritative and detailed report on the evidence. It states clearly that reducing the level to 50mg is highly effective and is broadly supported by the research. The research also supports reducing the level for young drivers to zero, which has been achieved in a number of areas and states. In effect, a zero limit for young drivers has been in place in Australia since 1983, and it has had a significant effect on that age group. There is some evidence that a graduated driving licence is also helpful. Under that approach, a full driving licence is not issued straight away.
There is also evidence that the new approach of using ignition interlock devices is helpful. Where such a device is fitted, the driver cannot engage the engine unless their breath test shows that their level of alcohol is below a specific limit. That approach has been used in the United States and Canada and has been trialled in Australia. Evidence from Canada shows that, where the device is used by people who have already committed an offence, recidivism levels are considerably reduced.
We need to review the issue and reach a decision in the fairly near future. We should introduce a 50mg level not for the sake of its being highly evidence based but because, as the cabinet secretary said, the 80mg level is beyond its sell-by date and is no longer effective. The programme needs a fresh impetus, and that would be provided by a change in the level.
I see that the Presiding Officer is indicating that my time is nearly up. We were trying to help by extending our speeches, but I am glad to be asked to wind up.
Finally, I make a plea that I made in the members' business debate on young drivers. There needs to be effective communication between the police and the health services on drinking issues. At present, general practitioners are not informed when the police are involved with people who have committed drink-related offences. As a GP for more than 30 years, I was never told that a patient of mine had a drink problem, so I was never put in the position of being able to help them to address it. I strongly urge the Government to use our powers to change that.
I pay tribute to the many members, including Dave Thompson, who have a record of campaigning on drink driving.
On the face of it, the issue of 80mg versus 50mg might appear to be pretty academic, but it is one of those issues where the statistics are compelling. Other members have already quoted some of those statistics, but the one that clinched the argument for me was the following, which was provided by the BMA. Someone with 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood is twice as likely to be involved in an accident as someone without a drink in them, but someone with 80mg of alcohol is 10 times more likely to be involved in an accident.
The current limit of 80mg was set 40 years ago, when Scotland had less than half the number of cars that it has now. In the same period, drink has become more than 60 per cent cheaper. The human cost of all that is only too apparent. In Scotland, one road fatality in nine is drink related, and there are families in all our constituencies who live daily with the consequences of that. Many of them will be known to us through our constituency work.
I make no case against drink. I would not be in a strong position if I tried to do so. I would no more make a case against drink than make a case against driving, but it is obvious that attitudes to drink driving have changed dramatically. I am old enough to remember when it was not unusual to hear people joke openly about the number of pints by which they had managed to defy the drink-driving law. They invariably hoped that, among their listeners, they would achieve the Robin Hood status that is achieved by poachers on a certain type of estate. However, times have changed, and it is time to reflect the changes in law.
As others have pointed out, no European country apart from Ireland, Malta and Luxembourg regards it as acceptable to drive with more than 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in the body. I appreciate that the point about random testing does not feature in the motion, but I point out that no other country in Europe except Denmark has a law that prevents the random testing of drivers. In our country, police have to jump through various hoops before they can test drivers. They have to suspect that a driver is driving erratically or committing a traffic offence or find that he has been involved in an accident. Case law has established that it is lawful for a police officer to stop a car randomly, but he can do a breath test only if he has reasonable cause, which is usually taken to mean that he smells drink from the driver. That is a convoluted situation. However, I accept that that matter is not in the motion.
I sympathise strongly with the sentiments of Bill Aitken's proposed changes to Richard Baker's amendment. Mr Aitken rightly comments on the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs—a phenomenon that is almost certainly on the increase.
I must confess that there is something about Richard Baker's amendment that I find perplexing and, to be honest, misjudged. I have no doubt whatsoever about Mr Baker's sincerity about the problem of drink driving, as his speech made clear, but his amendment seems to proceed from the assumption that the motion could be signed up to only by political opponents of the UK Government or people who share the SNP's position on the constitution. Other parties that do not support the SNP's position on the constitution clearly support today's motion.
I do not see what Richard Baker's amendment is all about, nor do I see that our motion is any kind of constitutional Trojan horse. Indeed, much as I would like to devolve powers on road traffic law from Westminster to Holyrood, the motion does not ask the Parliament to sign up to that; it simply seeks to reduce the blood alcohol limit for drivers. Nor is the motion opposed to the idea of the law in this regard being changed on a UK basis. Like others, I would be delighted if the law were changed on a UK basis. However, if that does not happen, we in this Parliament should have the guts to say what our view is.
The BMA, which speaks with unique authority on the matter, has welcomed all efforts in the Scottish Parliament to raise the issue with Westminster. Mr Baker's amendment enjoins us to participate in the UK Government's consultation on drink driving. Again, I have no difficulty with the UK Government's efforts in the area, just with the slowness of its progress. I hope that a UK solution to the problem can be found and that the UK Government consultation will bear fruit eventually. However, if it does not, it would hardly be a revolutionary stance for us to call on the UK Government to act on our concerns about a matter of such cross-party concern as drink driving.
For what it is worth, I do not accept the argument that different drink-driving laws on either side of the border would be any more heinous than when we had different smoking laws on either side of the border. The public are well aware that criminal justice differs between the two countries. However, the motion does not call for any of that; it does not call for separate legislation. I hope that the motion appeals to everyone, regardless of their constitutional views.
I hope that the UK Government acts, but if it does not, I am with the BMA when it says that although the matter is reserved, there is full support for Scotland to increase pressure on the UK Government to take action.
Mr Baker and Dr Simpson said that they believe there is a good case for reducing the alcohol limit. Let us say so as a Parliament. The issue is too important for us not to take a stance on it. If we do not take a stance, we cannot expect much to change soon.
For members' convenience, it might be helpful to say that we are catching up on the slack, so I ask open-debate speakers to finish within about half a minute of their allocated time of six and a half minutes.
Although it is a small minority of motorists who continue to flout drink-driving rules, that irresponsible minority still accounts for an appalling sixth of all road deaths in the UK.
Drink drivers do not consider the devastating effect of their selfish behaviour that maims and kills innocent victims. Drivers who continue to drink drive these days do not seem to care about the contempt in which Scotland holds them. Can it be the case that such drivers do not believe that drink driving will destroy their own lives? It seems unbelievable in this day and age that those drivers who get behind the wheel after consuming alcohol are not aware of the consequences of their actions—the lost respect, the loss of their job, the lost mobility and maiming of others and, ultimately, the loss of life. I am sure that, as Alasdair Allan said, every member will have constituents who have lost their lives or who have lost family members due to the actions of drink drivers. They will also have constituents whose lives have been ruined by their own drink driving.
For the past couple of Christmases, the number of drivers arrested in Scotland over the four-week crackdown period has remained at, or just below, the 900 mark. The number of fatalities caused by drink driving also remains as stubbornly high as it was a decade ago. All Scotland's police forces do a tremendous job in protecting road users and pedestrians from the selfish and stupid actions of drink drivers. I thank them for their efforts, especially at this time of year.
As the roads minister, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, announced, the UK Government launched a consultation on new anti-drink-driving measures this year. Although those measures include proposals for more effective enforcement, I am sure that prescribed blood alcohol levels will be discussed. I am no expert, but I think that we need to look again at the prescribed blood alcohol limit, not only because the limit was set more than 40 years ago, as the minister said in his opening speech, but because of the confusion caused by the availability of stronger alcohol and larger measures, especially of wine and spirits, in our off-licences and pubs.
Lowering the limit will be a warning to those who drink up to the current limit, but it will have little effect on those who drive when they are twice or even three times the limit, which happens all too often. Setting a limit, whether it is at 80mg or 50mg per 100ml, will not mean a lot to most people and it will not stop drink driving.
I would set a limit at lower than 50mg—I believe that it should probably be at zero, although I accept Richard Simpson's point that it would be difficult to have a limit of zero. A much lower limit—of as near to zero as possible—would be much easier for people to understand and would make it much easier for our Governments and police forces to get across the message that it is not acceptable to drink and drive at all.
We spend an awful lot of money trying to educate the public on the effects of drinking and on how many units of alcohol various products contain. However, the message of that education programme is not getting through to most people.
If Scotland is to rid itself of the scourge of drink driving, more effort is required from the UK Government, the Scottish Government and, indeed, government at all levels. The issue is reserved and I have no doubt that the people who are working on the consultation and the Government ministers will take account of the debate that we are having today. I believe strongly that the Scottish ministers should continue to work alongside their Westminster counterparts, not just by exchanging letters every now and then.
It might be useful to say that I am entirely happy to talk to Jim Fitzpatrick. I have done so on a range of issues over my ministerial career and I have always found our discussions to be mutually satisfactory. We will of course continue to have a very good relationship on a matter on which we share concerns, although we do not yet share a view on exactly how to deal with them. We will continue to work constructively on the issue.
I am pleased to hear that. Of course, views differ. As we have witnessed this morning, views differ across this Parliament. A consultation can be effective only if the people who ultimately take decisions go into it with an open mind and if the voices of the people who respond to it are listened to.
How many consultations is it appropriate to carry out before a decision is made?
We do not need to talk about how many consultations are appropriate, but perhaps the SNP would be better able to answer that than I am. It is appropriate to listen to people and to come to the right decisions with a balance of opinion behind them.
It is wrong to argue, as Alasdair Allan has done, that the Parliament should send a strong message to the UK Government by supporting the SNP motion, which suggests that we reduce the limit to 50mg per 100ml of blood. Frankly, I do not support the setting of a limit at 50mg, and I do not think that the Parliament is united in any way on that given the views that have been expressed in the debate. The Parliament and the people of Scotland need to have this debate, and I am glad that we are having it.
Sorry, but I have to make progress.
The enforcement programme at Christmas and new year is well publicised, and I am sure that it has an effect. Nevertheless, we must not forget that drink driving occurs at other times of the year, when too many drivers in too many parts of Scotland decide to risk it. The Scottish Government has a role in ensuring that the police are resourced and that the education programme continues.
I say to the Government and SNP colleagues that they should not try to use the debate to pick another fight with the UK Government. They should get on with the job of educating people on the dangers of drink driving and resourcing the police to enforce the legislation on our behalf.
I welcome the debate, as it highlights an important issue at a key time of the year—the day after the Lib Dem Christmas party. I believe that many people enjoy a drink or two over the holiday season, and there are those who would consider driving after a few festive glasses of wine or pints of lager. It is therefore vital that people are reminded at this time of year of the tragic and unnecessary loss of life that can result from drink driving and of the devastating impact that it can have on victims and their families as well as on those who lose their licences, livelihoods and families as a result of their drink driving.
Will the member give way?
No, I am just getting into my stride.
Culturally, there has been an improvement in the situation over recent years, but we still need to challenge the perception that is held by some people that it is safe to have a couple of drinks and then get behind the wheel of a car. Any amount of alcohol affects an individual's ability to drive safely, through slower reaction times, increased stopping distances, impaired co-ordination and concentration and poorer judgment. I share the concerns that Bill Aitken expressed, on behalf of the Conservatives, about drug driving, as all of the above could be said about drug driving as well.
I join the minister in supporting police forces throughout Scotland in their campaign against drink driving over the festive season. I hope that the publicity surrounding the campaign will have an impact and make people think twice.
My colleagues and I support the call to lower the legal blood alcohol limit for driving. At our conference this year, we passed a motion that called on the Government to support a reduction in the legal blood alcohol limit to 50mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood. That move is supported by the BMA and other medical professionals as well as by the police and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. They have all acknowledged the difference that lowering the limit could make to safety on our roads. As we have heard, it would also bring us into line with the majority of European countries. Such a reduction was a recommendation of the European Union nearly eight years ago but, regrettably, it was ignored by the UK Government at that time. Harmonising the limit with that of the majority of other European countries would make the law clearer for all citizens, as has been recognised by other members.
I usually have a degree of sympathy with the view that the SNP Government seeks to make mischief on constitutional matters, but today—maybe it is because of the mood that I am in—I do not share the Labour Party's view in that regard. In fact, rather disappointingly, it is Labour that has engaged in mischief.
The UK Government is running a road safety compliance consultation, which we have heard about. It asks vague questions about the priority that should be given to a change in the limit, and what evidence could be sought in the process of making any decision on the change. However, as Robert Brown pointed out, the Government is not proposing a lowering of the limit and is not proposing any action until at least after 2010. Richard Baker says that there is a need to look at evidence, yet Ross Finnie outlined clearly more than a decade's worth of evidence. That was backed up by an excellent speech by Dave Thompson, which clearly showed the prevarication that there has been at UK level on this issue. The evidence is quite clear. What we need is not more evidence but action.
Some might argue that we should go for a full ban on drinking before driving, as that would be the clearest approach. However, as we have heard, there could be problems with that approach, due to false blood alcohol readings being obtained in certain cases—for example, if someone had taken particular drugs or, as Richard Simpson pointed out, eaten an extra plate of sherry trifle. Rather than that, we need a change in the law that will clearly catch those people who have driven a car after they have drunk a certain amount of alcohol.
The lowering of the limit has to be easy to understand and it has to be supported by the vast majority of people. I think that that is the case with regard to the Government's proposal.
The current drink-driving campaign has resulted in an increased number of morning-after arrests. In the first week of the campaign, one of those arrests was of a school teacher who was nearly twice the limit as she was on her way to work.
Those who were out enjoying themselves last night and had a blood alcohol level of 200mg per 100ml or more at midnight would have almost certainly been above the 80mg level when they got in their cars at 8 o'clock this morning, because, typically, the rate of metabolism and excretion of alcohol from the bloodstream is around 15mg per hour. That varies quite a bit, and there are people who make a living out of doing back calculations of whether it is reasonable—
This is rather a long intervention.
I accept that it was a long intervention, but it was also a telling one. I have to say that, knowing that I was going to be speaking on this subject today, I moved on to orange juice after dinner last night for exactly the reason that Mr Adam identifies.
As Richard Simpson said, individuals have different tolerances to alcohol. Even if there was a ready reckoner for how much alcohol could be drunk by someone before driving, it would not deal with the fact that every individual's body has a different ability to process alcohol.
We need to encourage people to think about their drinking and reduce it where necessary, and we need to do so in a way that does not alienate the majority of the public and certainly does not demonise younger people. That is another issue that forms part of the alcohol strategy, so we have some concerns about the Chief Medical Officer's suggestion that younger drivers should have a zero limit, which would raise exactly the same problems as it would if it were applied to every driver.
It is worth remembering that the recent report of the Institute of Advanced Motorists stated that only 25 per cent of drivers aged 16 to 19 who were killed in crashes in 2005 were over the legal blood alcohol limit, compared with 33 per cent in the 20 to 39 age group. To focus on any particular age group is to miss the major point, which is that we need to reduce the limit across all age groups.
I congratulate the Government on bringing this debate to the chamber at a time of year when drink driving becomes more of an issue than it is at other times. Although we will all, no doubt, enjoy a few sherries over Christmas, we should, quite simply, not drive if we have been drinking. However, as Alasdair Gillies of the Scottish Police Federation noted, under the current legislation, many thousands of drivers are still prepared to take a chance. That is unfortunate because, on the whole, people find drink driving to be unacceptable and contemptible.
As Alasdair Allan said, attitudes have thankfully come a long way over the past few decades. Before I was born, my mother and father were involved in a car accident in which a drunk driver ploughed into them. My mum told me that she was very badly injured and had to spend months in callipers—she still has the scars from the crash. There was no talk of compensation back then and no real moral outrage, because it was regarded as being just one of those things. Thankfully, things would be very different if such an incident happened now.
However, according to the police and others, the cavalier attitude to chancing it persists, so we must do all that we can to stop it. The current limit in many ways encourages people to take a chance, because no one is really sure how much is too much to drink and when they can safely and legally drive.
Key messages about drink driving are often confusing and blurred in the public's mind. There is a view that a pint is okay, but the stark reality—as Margaret Smith noted—is that, depending on a number of factors including a person's size, weight, sex and tolerance of alcohol, the effects vary tremendously between individuals.
Scottish Government figures show that, in 2005, 30 people died and 990 were injured on Scotland's roads as a result of drink driving. Despite a fall in the number of drink-driving accidents and casualties over the past 10 years, the numbers are still far too high and represent many innocent families who have had their lives needlessly affected by drink driving.
Even more worryingly, senior Scottish police officers have expressed concern that the prevalence of young drivers and people in rural communities who drink and drive is still too high. I do not think that any member in the chamber disagrees with the principle that clearer messages must be sent out to curb the incidence of drink driving. The legal limit needs to be lowered to 50mg per 100ml of blood, as the Scottish Government proposes in its motion.
Other members have spoken about research that shows that the risk of an individual having an accident while driving increases tenfold when they have a blood alcohol content of 80mg per 100ml of blood—the current UK limit—compared with the risk that is involved in driving with a zero blood alcohol level. The risk that is associated with a level of 50mg per 100ml of blood is markedly lower than it is with the current UK limit.
Some members have mentioned research that shows that people who are found to be driving with a 50mg level of alcohol in their blood are at a 50 per cent greater risk of causing an accident than those who have a zero alcohol level. Is the member convinced that setting that limit is the right way to go, or should we set it lower?
As other members have said, reducing the limit to 50mg significantly reduces the risk. Throughout Europe, the incidence of drink-driving accidents has been reduced by having a 50mg limit in place, so it is a sensible way to move forward. We need to send out a clear message to help people to stop drink driving.
The BMA briefing said that a level of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood would bring about a significant deterioration in someone's driving ability, which would be manifested in slower driver reaction times, increased stopping distances, reduced field of vision and—in the unfortunate case of many young drivers—overconfidence.
Additional methods will be necessary to curtail the scourge of drink driving. Many of the briefings that members have received for the debate call for stricter enforcement to deter drink drivers, including the implementation of random breath testing, which is advocated by the BMA and was mentioned today by Dave Thompson. Research in Australia found that highly visible random testing can have a sustained significant effect in reducing levels of drink driving, alcohol-related road traffic crashes and associated injuries and fatalities. RBT is currently common practice in all other nations throughout the EU with the exception of Denmark. However, that is not the only difference between the UK and Europe. Tackling drink driving has been handled very differently on the continent, with 23 out of the EU's 27 member states having a legal alcohol limit set at 50g per 100ml of blood. Only the UK, Ireland, Luxembourg and Malta have an 80mg limit.
The BMA noted that Britain has lost its place at the top of the EU road safety league, and that the Netherlands and Sweden now have lower road death rates and have been more successful in reducing drink-driving crashes. It might come as no surprise that the limits in those two countries are 50mg and 20mg respectively. The European Commission recommends that member states should reduce the legal drink-driving limit to 50mg, and it has encouraged member states to increase RBT, particularly in trouble spots. In fact, I understand that one of the main reasons why the Commission did not propose Europe-wide legislation on the matter was that it was taken for granted that member states would implement measures at their level.
I welcome the work that the Scottish Government and my colleague Dave Thompson are doing to lobby the UK Government, as well as moves to tackle drink driving in the early morning, as folk who have drunk the night before forget the lingering impact of alcohol in their system. I raise a wee concern about the availability of personal breathalysers, often in the form of key-rings, as I am not sure that that sends out a good message. I understand that there is no regulation of the effectiveness of those devices, which can be bought freely over the counter.
Other members have stated that, in its "Road Safety Compliance Consultation" document, the UK Government does not address directly the current drink-driving limit or RBT. That would have been a good opportunity to rethink the limit and to recognise that Europe is doing things differently. I favour lowering the limit because I think that that is the right thing to do and it has been proven to work. I hope that the spirit of consensus and of Christmas will allow us today to support the work of the Scottish Government and those MSPs who are working to reduce the limit.
I am all for Christmas and consensus. In that spirit, I say that the Scottish Government's motion is timely. I congratulate Mr MacAskill on bringing forward for debate a subject of such importance to people throughout Scotland and the UK. Such is the gravity of the issue that I hope that Parliament will be able to arrive at a sensible consensus that expresses fundamental concerns that are shared by the people of all the nations of the UK.
No thinking person can be in any doubt that drink driving continues to present a significant danger throughout the year to all road users in Scotland. The statistics are compelling. In 2005, 30 people were killed and there were 660 drink driving-related accidents, involving 990 casualties. In Scotland in 2006, 59 per cent of motorists who were involved in injury accidents were asked to take a breath test; 4.1 per cent tested positive, a figure that has remained reasonably consistent in the past five years. Although there has been a downward trend in the overall number of drink- driving-related incidents of all severities, unhappily that is not mirrored in the number of fatalities, which remains at an average of 59 deaths per year on Scotland's roads—exactly the same as 10 years ago. Such carnage, with its concomitant human misery, is both unacceptable and, in large part, avoidable.
Does Mr Butler agree that car safety has improved greatly in 10 years and that the introduction of air bags in many cars has resulted in fewer fatal injuries in accidents?
I do, but the statistics for fatalities resulting from drink driving remain worryingly high; I am sure that Mr Wilson and the chamber will agree on that.
We all know that alcohol, even in relatively small amounts, impairs the ability of drivers to drive safely. Slower driver reaction times, reduced co-ordination, poorer judgment of speed, time and distance, reduced vision and concentration, and the taking of unnecessary risks—as Aileen Campbell indicated—are the consequences of even a very modest intake of alcohol.
What is to be done to improve safety and to reduce the number of accidents, too many of which result in fatalities? We must remember that the toll is exacted not only on drivers but on their passengers, pedestrians and the families and friends of those who find themselves victims of irresponsible drink driving. It is clear to me that a coherent national approach, not only across Scotland but throughout the UK, is required. This is an issue of such gravity that our constituents will demand—quite correctly—that politicians of all parties and none work together to agree a strategy that is based on a rational, commonsense approach and do so in a fashion that sets to one side constitutional point scoring or inflexible political dogma.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment.
I was pleased to hear Mr MacAskill state earlier that this
"is not a constitutional matter",
despite his slip into regrettable sophistry when I pointed out that the executive summary of the UK consultation document contains two questions that are directly and explicitly about changing the limit. However, as it is Christmas, I am willing to forgive that elementary slip in deductive reasoning, because reasoning is what we need—we need to be rational here today.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment. Let us not become fixated on the incontrovertible fact that the matter is reserved to Westminster.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
Let us instead do what we are doing here in the chamber today: discussing the ways and means by which a significant danger to all our communities can be dramatically reduced.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
The safety of the individual must be our paramount concern in this very important national conversation. I agree with the research that was outlined in the detailed and perceptive briefing from the BMA, which has already been referred to. It clearly indicates the pressing need to re-examine the issue of blood alcohol concentration level reduction. The evidence clearly demonstrates that
"The relative crash risk of drivers with a BAC of 50mg/100ml is double that for a person with a zero BAC; the risk rises to 10 times for a BAC of 80mg/100ml."
Scientists believe that
"lowering the BAC level could be expected to lead to about 65 fewer deaths and 250 fewer serious injuries per year."
In my view, that is powerful evidence of the need for change. Many of our European neighbours—23 to be exact—have a 50mg BAC limit or lower. The Netherlands and Sweden, to pick two countries out of the 23, now have lower road death rates than the UK, and they have been more successful in reducing the number of drink-driving crashes. It seems clear to me that such a reduction in BAC has much to commend it. However, like Brian Adam, I personally favour a level as near to zero as is scientifically possible. That is the right way to go.
In our debate here at Holyrood, let us send out a clear message to our colleagues at Westminster that radical reform is required. That is perfectly legitimate, and it would indicate a welcome degree of positive co-operation between legislatures. Let us go further, in fact. Let each member here at Holyrood resolve today to make a submission to the UK Government's consultation, urging such a course of action. Perhaps Mr Salmond, with his dual mandate, could also raise the matter directly, as a UK MP at Westminster. Such a direct approach would, I am certain, provide a welcome, constructive contribution.
Let us ensure that, this year, the story of Christmas remains one of new life, and is not a tragic tale of unnecessary death and heartache.
The UK Government estimated in 1998—as has been mentioned more than once today—that reducing the limit to 50mg would save about 50 lives and 250 serious injuries a year. That knowledge is agreed across the chamber, and we are left in no doubt that action is needed soon.
As the motion
"calls on the UK Government to reduce the 80 mg limit … to a 50 mg limit",
we wonder why members on all sides of the chamber cannot take part in that Christmas message to the UK Government. I am surprised that it has been necessary to create barriers of reasoning, with some members promoting the Labour amendment as the proper way ahead—but without recognising that we agree, in fact, on about 99 per cent of the things that we are discussing. Could those members not go that 1 per cent further and support the Government's motion?
Deeper cultural issues must be examined. My colleague Dave Thompson mentioned that we have a drink-driving rate in the Highlands that is 27 per cent higher than elsewhere. There are issues related to countryside living and the different culture of the Highlands—perhaps there is a harder-drinking culture in the Highlands and Islands. There are also dangers when there are no alternatives for people; I refer to instances in which a driver has not been designated—and, indeed, to public transport.
In that respect, I very much welcome the arrangement that has been made in Inverness to have late-night buses during the festive period, which will allow more people to get away from the danger spots in the town, where violence might take place, and to get home. Should not such services be available at other times of the year? Although we highlight drink driving during the festive period, in summer the problem can be much worse, because people are tempted to drink and drive after going to barbecues or travelling further afield for the day.
In case members need an example that will sear in their minds the cost to us all of drink driving, I can tell them that when I was a young teacher, three pupils who were in my geography class at 4 pm one Friday afternoon were dead by midnight, along with two other people, after being mown down by a drink driver on the A9 near Calrossie. The accident had a huge and enduring impact on the local community and led to engineering changes being made to the road. The person who mowed down those young people exemplifies a phenomenon that we must find a better way to tackle.
A reduction in the drink-driving limit is one means of tackling the issue. We also need a culture change around our attitude to fast cars—and indeed around the belief that everyone should have a car. Cars are more powerful these days and the greater the speed, the greater the impact of an accident. It bothers me that young people still have a Jeremy Clarkson attitude to driving. If we are to change how people think about driving and drinking, we must address that culture.
I am listening carefully to the member's thoughtful speech. Does he agree that the Labour amendment calls for debate on wider issues to do with road safety and compliance, which is exactly what he is calling for? I urge him to support the amendment, which would encourage debate.
Many Labour Party members have urged us to accept the Labour amendment. However, there has been a problem for so long that we are calling on the UK Government to reduce the drink-driving limit. Our approach is not unreasonable and takes account of conditions on Scottish roads, which we face daily and which members of all parties acknowledge need to be addressed. There is nothing wrong with the motion, and the weak arguments that members have made, which have introduced constitutional matters, have added nothing to the debate. It would have been helpful if the UK consultation had included a proposal to lower the limit to 50mg, which has been suggested at least three times in the past. The prevarication on the issue must end and the motion takes the proper approach.
I support Diageo's never drink and drive campaign, which is supported by Lewis Hamilton and other well-known figures. Those people must take the message not just to the cities but to the countryside, where I live, where the problem is even more serious and special efforts to reduce drink driving are needed. I support the motion.
I am pleased to support the motion in the name of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and I welcome the debate.
A number of years ago, at about 5.30 pm on a summer evening, I was driving through a small village near my home when my car was hit by a car that had been heading towards me. I suspected that the driver had been drinking, because he had just exited a public house, and when we exchanged details I smelled alcohol on his breath. I thought that the incident was a matter for the police, so I phoned the police, but when the driver realised what I had done he sped off in his car. The police contacted me and tried to catch the driver, but it was unfortunate that he could not be found at home and no action could be taken at the time.
How the police apprehend drivers who are involved in incidents and who are suspected of having drunk alcohol and of being over the limit is an issue, because after such individuals enter their homes, many of them claim that they have taken a drink to steady their nerves. We need to address that. Many incidents go unreported because of such behaviour by drivers who have sped home or entered someone else's house.
Is the member aware that the police can take appropriate action by testing such an individual, even if he claims that he drank subsequent to the incident? Appropriate blood tests can reveal whether drink was taken recently or whether that person's driving was impaired at the time in question.
I accept that. The issue is apprehending such a driver shortly after the event took place.
It is unfortunate that we live in a society in which far too many people suffer from overdependence on alcohol. Too often, we see the aftermath of that culture at the weekend in the accident and emergency units of all our hospitals in Scotland. What I have described sounds only like the usual Friday or Saturday night in any village, town or city. However, as other members have said, the situation is more horrendous when we see the effects of alcohol on someone who is driving a 1.5 tonne vehicle that can travel at speeds of more than 70mph. The evidence is becoming more apparent that alcohol impairs the ability to judge speed and distance and that it has different effects on different individuals. Other members have mentioned that.
It is unfortunate that alcohol can result in more lethal effects than just the vehicle's driver being injured or killed. Often, the car's passengers are injured or killed. If the car is involved in an accident with another vehicle, the number of people who are injured or killed can rise dramatically. The effects of such actions can inflict untold damage on the families and friends of those who are injured or killed.
As a timely coincidence, last night's edition of "Police, Camera, Action!" on ITV1 at 9 pm followed the experience of the programme's presenter while driving with different levels of alcohol in his bloodstream. Tests were monitored by several specialists and new technology was used to monitor his line of vision and his attention to the road. The results shocked the reporter. As he consumed more alcohol, he felt more in control, but he was less in control in reality, as the tests proved. The programme also focused on several people who admitted to drinking to excess and driving regularly.
As members have said, it is especially relevant to individuals who have enjoyed themselves the previous evening at the office Christmas party, for example, to remember the effects of their alcohol consumption, which might mean that the alcohol level in their bloodstream is still above the legal limit. That applies particularly to people who intend to drive with children in their car the following morning.
I accept that we cannot have a zero level of alcohol in the bloodstream because of some medical conditions, which other members have explained. However, as a first step, we can urge the UK Government to lower the blood alcohol limit to be in line with that in other European countries, rather than rely on greater enforcement of existing limits.
It is important to highlight the drink-driving campaign at this time of year, but we must acknowledge that we should be aware of the effects of alcohol and of drink driving throughout the year. That is true particularly in the summer months, as Rob Gibson said, when people drive home from barbecue parties after consuming four or five pints of beer or four or five alcoholic drinks.
I urge members to support the motion in Kenny MacAskill's name at decision time and to send a clear message to all drivers at this time of year and throughout the year that they should think before they drink and drive.
The debate has been good and is appropriately timed as we move into the festive season, which is joyful for many but is—tragically—a time of loss and personal grief for some. I was struck by Rob Gibson's description of his experience in that regard.
The Liberal Democrats here and at Westminster support the reduction of the limit to 50mg. When I was a newly qualified solicitor—a procurator fiscal depute—the breathalyser had not long come into use. It was common for people to come up to me at parties and ask my view on whether some scheme or notion—some wizard wheeze, as David McLetchie might say—would get them off the hook if they were breathalysed. Their faith in the power of mint sweets, not drinking on an empty stomach or alleged legal loopholes in the legislation was extraordinary, as was their disappointment when I told them that, in my half-learned view, their plans would not work.
My point is that, in those days, driving under the influence of drink was not seen as particularly reprehensible. Now, however, there is no question but that young people, in particular, do not approve of driving over the limit and, indeed for the most part, do not approve of driving with any alcohol in their body. It is not cool to do so, and the change of culture and public attitude is manifest.
Like Margaret Smith, I am conscious of a certain paradox in discussing an alcohol-related issue the day after the Liberal Democrat Christmas party. However, I can assure members that Mr Finnie, Mrs Smith and I were models of sobriety at last night's events. Indeed, there was not even any sherry trifle on the menu.
Several issues have come out of the debate, although we have not touched on enforcement and publicity, which are also part of the picture. In an excellent speech, Ross Finnie referred to the accumulation of report after report—from the House of Lords, the UK Government, transport safety studies and two European bodies in particular—providing evidence in support of the move to an alcohol limit of 50mg. I was intrigued by Cathie Craigie's suggestion that we were not moving towards a majority or consensus in the Parliament in favour of that. Most of the Labour speakers personally indicated support for the move; Richard Simpson, with his greater medical and personal knowledge, was among them.
I say with respect to my Labour colleagues that they got the tone extremely wrong in their approach to today's debate. As others have said, there have been constitutional debates in which the SNP Government has made mischief, but this was not one of them. Richard Baker danced on the head of many pins—
Will the member give way?
Not at this point.
In his best student debater form, Richard Baker tried to suggest that the British Government was somehow putting a proposal before the nation. It is manifest from the consultation paper that it is not doing that. There is no Government proposal; there is just a vague assertion that something might be consulted on and something might happen in the future.
I was not dancing on the head of a pin. The consultation is clear: a change in the alcohol limit is being consulted on. Misrepresentation of that fact by SNP Government members is why there has been mischief and a failure to reach consensus. It is unfortunate that Mr Brown, too, has taken that position.
That is not correct. It is manifest that the consultation is not on a change in the legislation. Governments that propose changes in legislation explain to us the changes that they want to propose, with a plan to introduce legislation in the future. The consultation is manifestly not that.
To use Bill Butler's words, there is a high level of sophistry in the attitudes of Labour members. Among that, good points were made, and it is unfortunate that the overemphasis on the constitutional element has detracted from the points that were made. Dave Thompson outlined the history and the changes in the Government line over time, and the reality is that there is no Government proposal for action on the table.
Let me draw into the debate one or two additional features that are worthy of mention. In the Government's drink-driving campaign this year, which began on 1 December, a total of 164 drivers have been caught drink driving or have refused to give a breath test; one in 10 of those were morning-after arrests. That is a significant feature of the problem.
The "Drinking and Driving 2007: Prevalence, Decision Making and Attitudes" survey, which was published in March 2008, showed that most people thought that a personal safe limit was two drinks, regardless of the drink, strength or size of glass, which could be enough to take someone over the limit. That is an important point, as people's habits and attitudes are based on their understanding of the law.
As several members have said, the age group that is most affected by accidents is 14 to 25-year-olds, for whom road accidents—alcohol-related accidents in particular—are the prime cause of death.
A UK study of drink driving found that
"two-thirds of drink-driving offenders had BAC levels above 1.50, that 40 per cent of the offenders consumed"
a large amount
"of beer a week, and that driving after drinking was a regular habit for them."
The problem continues to be a major issue.
The evidence in support of the reduction to 50mg is overwhelming. It would be helpful if the chamber were to send out a unanimous message at decision time. Action on the drink-driving limit is necessary and important, but it must be combined with action on the wider issues of enforcement, publicity and tackling the hard core of people who regularly continue to drive when they are well over the limit. That is the important aspect of today's debate.
I welcome this Government debate on drink driving. That said, like several other members, I note that the matter is reserved to Westminster, which makes it crucial that we in Scotland work with Westminster to tackle the problem of drink driving.
I do not dispute the Government's good intentions in this regard; everyone knows the devastating effects of drink driving. However, I do not believe that reducing the permitted alcohol limit for drink driving would necessarily encourage people to change their drinking habits. Rather than extend the heavy hand of government, we should instead promote the culture of responsible drinking. As Cathie Craigie said, drinkers need to be made more aware of what constitutes a measure of alcohol, particularly in light of the size of glasses that many pubs and bars now use. The state can do only so much to tackle the problem by way of legislation. We must remind the citizens of Scotland that their obligation is to know the alcohol limit and when they cannot and should not drive.
The Association of British Drivers has stated a belief that drivers with a blood alcohol content level of above 100mg are the real problem and that cutting the limit to 50mg is likely to be counterproductive. As the association points out, the 80mg limit was chosen in the 1960s because 80mg to 90mg per 100ml accurately marks the point at which the accident risk starts to increase. Furthermore, previous Government consultations showed that drivers in the 50mg to 80mg per 100ml range are not overrepresented in the figures for fatalities or serious injuries. At the very least, reducing the limit may be a flawed approach to tackling drink driving.
The SNP is moving to reduce the limit to 50mg because the law is more than 40 years old. However, over that time, neither the chemical formula of alcohol nor the human body has changed. If nothing else has changed since 1967, why change the law? Instead of lowering the limit, we must encourage responsible drinking and ensure that offences are punished appropriately.
Mr Lamont must accept that there have been a lot of changes since the mid-1960s. One example is the increase in the number of cars on the road. Although the number of serious injuries has reduced, that could be the result of many factors including improved car design, safer roads and better hospital treatment. Things have changed an awful lot since the mid-1960s. The member must accept that.
There is also no evidence to suggest that, if the limit is lowered, the number of accidents will reduce. The core of the problem is education: we need to encourage responsible drinking. People need to know what is—and what is not—an acceptable amount to drink, taking account of their personal circumstances and the legal limit that is in place.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I need to make progress.
The cabinet secretary argued that the proposals will align Scotland more closely with the countries of Europe. However, as Bill Aitken said, it is important to note that many of the countries that have those lower limits tend to have lower penalties for drink driving. In some European countries, if someone has 50mg to 80mg per 100ml of alcohol in their blood, they receive points on their licence and a fine. If the penalties against drink driving were lowered in line with a reduction in the alcohol limit, the attitude towards drink driving may also change. A driving ban is a very strong disposal. We are concerned that, if people simply get points on their licence for drink driving, they may view that as a badge of honour. The measure would therefore have limited effect. Giving someone a complete driving ban makes them reconsider the way in which they drive in a way that fines and penalty points may never do.
Although we should not necessarily move to lower the limit from 80mg to 50mg per 100ml until we have more evidence to support such a step, I have more sympathy for moves to lower the limit for drivers who are aged under 25. Has the Scottish Government considered whether it could support that measure?
On that point—
I will finish the point.
Investigating that measure could be a worthwhile endeavour, given that it has been shown that younger drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents in which diminished performance due to drink is a factor. There is some precedent for that already, because new drivers who have less than two years' experience and who receive six points on their licence receive a ban. Clearly, that puts the focus on younger drivers, and I encourage the Scottish Government to investigate that proposal further with the UK Government as another potential option to combat drink driving.
I am astonished. Surely what the member proposes would be discriminatory, absurd and unenforceable.
It is not discriminatory. It is about focusing on an area in which there is evidence of a problem. Evidence suggests that young drivers who have been involved in an accident are more likely to have been under the influence of alcohol.
At present, Scottish police cannot randomly test alcohol levels in drivers. They need to have reasonable cause to suspect drinking, or the driver needs to have committed another offence. However, there might be merit in introducing targeted testing at specific times of day and in specific places, together with high-visibility policing. If people think that they will not be caught, they might be more likely to commit the offence.
I welcome the introduction of roadside testing for drugs, but I wonder what limit should be set. If an acceptable drug level limit were to be set, the implication would be that the Government condones drug use in a limited way. However, if a zero-tolerance approach were to be taken, that might push people into using harder drugs. For example, cannabis can stay in the system for up to two months, but cocaine, a harder drug, stays in the system for only a couple of days. We must come together with the UK Government on that issue to find the best solution for the rapidly growing problem of drug driving.
I remain sceptical about extending the heavy hand of government further than it already goes. Rather than always looking for new ways to legislate on the issue, we should emphasise the importance of drinking responsibly and being aware of alcohol abuse. If the people of Scotland take it upon themselves to prevent drink driving, that personal responsibility will do more to reduce drink-driving offences than will adding yet more legal constraints. Education and awareness, not the addition of more rules and regulations, will make the real difference in saving lives that are lost in drink-driving accidents.
We all agree that drink driving is unacceptable and that we should all work together to root out the problem. I have met families who have lost loved ones because of drunk drivers. The pain and devastation that are caused to victims and their families should motivate us all to root out the problem and work together with our Westminster colleagues. This should not become a constitutional debate about seeking differences of opinion.
Hear, hear.
I note that Mr MacAskill makes a comment from a sedentary position. I am sorry to have to make this point, and will do it as constructively as possible, but the minister has been missing for two thirds of the debate. It is disappointing that a minister should be missing from such an important debate. Perhaps Mr Stevenson can give us an explanation for that when he winds up.
We have not talked about random breath testing today. I have always been of the opinion that, as a law-abiding driver, I have nothing to fear from random breath testing. I believe that random breath testing is an effective detection method that would help our police officers. If we are serious about tackling drink driving, we should support our police officers in every way possible, including providing them with the legal remedies that allow them to show initiative.
Could Mr Martin give us any evidence of the help that random breath testing would be in changing levels of prosecution or the number of people who drink and drive?
I understand that ACPOS has, in the past, supported the introduction of random breath testing.
I can give Mr Brown specific evidence. New Zealand introduced random breath testing in 1996, and the number of road deaths and casualties associated with alcohol fell by 21 per cent in the first year and by 38 per cent in the second year. There is the evidence.
I welcome that helpful intervention from Richard Simpson, who is well versed in such matters.
It is important that Parliament pay tribute to police forces throughout the UK, who over the years have led a number of highly successful public awareness campaigns that have changed perceptions of drink driving, which in previous generations was an acceptable practice. There is no getting away from the fact that—as Bill Aitken, Aileen Campbell and others have said—drink driving used to be tolerated. Aileen Campbell gave a clear example of the cavalier attitude that existed.
We have moved forward, and we should acknowledge that we have done so as a result of some extremely constructive public awareness campaigns that have set out a zero-tolerance approach to drink driving. In our amendment, we make the point that if we are to continue with such high-profile campaigns against drink driving, we must ensure that the Government provides the necessary resources.
We agree that greater use should be made of technology to detect whether drivers are under the influence of drugs so that they can be dealt with. Stewart Stevenson mentioned some of the technology that is being developed. The Tory amendment makes the constructive point that we must be vigilant at all times of the year. To be fair, there are a number of good examples of police authorities that are.
During Dave Thompson's members' business debate on the subject, Claire Baker referred to a number of successful initiatives in her region, including the successful safe drive, stay alive campaign in Fife, which is sponsored by Diageo. It works with senior pupils and college students to consider a range of issues that face new drivers, and it emphasises the dangers of drink driving. I note that around 1,500 young people take part in the project every year. The project's content reflects the findings of statistical evidence and feedback from emergency services personnel. We sometimes miss out the emergency services when it comes to feedback. Consultation is also done with education officers and road users. We must welcome the innovative and hard-hitting approach that the safe drive, stay alive campaign has adopted, particularly its involvement of the parents of road accident victims and other victims.
Our amendment recognises that the consultation that the UK Government is carrying out on road safety and related matters offers a holistic approach to the five key areas of speeding, drink driving, seatbelt wearing, drug driving and careless driving. I believe that the Department for Transport's consultation is a fair and comprehensive document. In relation to the point that Mr Brown and Mr Finnie—who has left the chamber—made, I refer to the consultation's invitation to respondents to say
"what priority they think should be given to a change in the prescribed alcohol limit for driving".
The consultation could not be any clearer; it will provide opportunities to respond on that specific issue.
I will not take any lectures from a Government that has passed only one piece of justice legislation and one piece of transport legislation in 21 months and that has passed a total of only seven bills since it came to power. I will not take any lectures on the ability of the SNP Government to make quicker progress on the issue than the Westminster Government, which has set out its timetable.
Suggestions have been made that the UK Government might be considering the introduction of powers that would allow the courts to gain new sentencing powers that would require repeat or serious offenders to have alcolocks fitted to their cars after they have served bans. Richard Simpson dealt with the matter constructively. We believe that alcolocks, which work by linking the ignition to an onboard breathalyser, constructively use the technology available to deal with persistent offenders who take every opportunity to evade the law.
This is not the last time we will debate this issue. I hope that the Scottish Government will show leadership by putting aside its differences with Westminster and working together on this issue with our colleagues in the Department for Transport.
I beg Parliament to support Richard Baker's amendment.
In the light of Margaret Smith's reference to the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I draw Parliament's attention to my entry in the register of members' interests, in which I have declared my membership of that organisation.
I am glad that we have had this opportunity to discuss this important issue and am heartened by the broad consensus on the view that the current levels of death and injury through drink driving are unacceptable. That thread has run through all the speeches. The casualty figures are moving in the right direction—the number of deaths and serious injuries in 2007 is 45 per cent lower than it was in the mid-1990s, but there is much more to do. One death is one too many.
I will respond to various points that have been made in the debate. Richard Simpson is one of many members on the Labour benches who support a change from the 80mg blood alcohol level, although there are varying opinions on what it should be reduced to. The key issue is that having alcohol in one's system leads to a reduction in appropriate decision-making powers and a diminution of motor skills. Alcohol also reduces inhibitions and multiplies a range of other effects. At 9.40, Richard Baker said that he thouht it would be better if there were a lower limit. Labour members have got the message; it is just not set out in their amendment.
Bill Aitken made a number of excellent points on drug driving. I note that no one disagreed in any material sense with his comments and I hope that there will be very substantial support for his amendment, even though in supporting it we will be left with a Labour Party amendment that still misses the point. In 1998, the Department for Transport at Westminster made it quite clear that reducing the blood alcohol limit to 50mg would prevent 50 deaths. It is time for us to express that view and to ensure, in a spirit of partnership, that Westminster takes account of it, given that the rest of Great Britain will benefit as a result.
In a spirit of partnership, we, of course, welcome that limit. However, does the minister accept that members on the Government benches have argued not for a 50mg level alone but for three different limits? I believe that that makes the case for having a full consultation and taking the evidence-based approach that I am calling for. Surely the Department for Transport is looking for constructive engagement from the Scottish Government on this matter.
On three previous occasions, the policy at Westminster has been to reduce the limit to 50mg. The 11th question in the consultation documents asks,
"What evidence are you able to offer"
to support a change in the limit. The document is not seeking a real change; it is simply asking for more evidence, even though the Labour Administration at Westminster has suggested on three occasions that the limit be reduced to 50mg.
Bill Aitken also referred to Romberg's test, in which people have to estimate how long 30 seconds is. A few members—not, I hope, all the Liberals—should consider that point.
Ross Finnie highlighted certain points that the BMA raised in its briefing note, including slow reaction times, late braking and overconfidence. In an intervention on Mr Finnie, Bill Butler referred to the considerable body of evidence on the subject and Dave Thompson, who has been working on this matter for a long time, made a great deal of sense when he talked about crash risks.
Richard Simpson spoke about three groups of people who are at risk. He focused on the borderline group—the people who drink but try to stay under the limit—and suggested that particular difficulties arise with them. If we were to reduce the limit, there is little doubt that we would make those people think much more carefully about the implications of drinking at all. We would also see a reduction in people's drinking, as has been seen right across Europe.
Richard Simpson also mentioned interesting evidence from Australia and New Zealand and spoke about technical measures, although such measures alone cannot solve the problem. For example, a person who wants to continue to drive can get someone else to breathe into an in-car breathalyser.
Alasdair Allan talked about rural difficulties. He said that we are not against drink and we are not against driving, but we are against conjoining the two. He referred to the effect that drink driving can have on families.
Cathie Craigie said that a small minority of people offend. That is certainly true, but those people have a disproportionate effect on families and safety across Scotland. Cathie Craigie would go for a zero limit, as would one or two others including my colleague Brian Adam, and she called for more efforts from the Scottish and UK Governments. We are prepared to step up to that challenge: I hope that the UK Government is too.
Margaret Smith referred to EU recommendations of eight years ago and said that most EU countries have responded to those recommendations. Aileen Campbell gave more examples of personal experience. Bill Butler welcomed the debate and said that the numbers of deaths related to drink driving had been broadly the same for about 10 years. If that is not an argument for doing something now, what is? He also said that there would be 65 fewer deaths if the limit were 50mg. That is pretty strong evidence.
Rob Gibson raised cultural issues that relate especially to the Highlands, but which also relate to other places. Robert Brown and John Lamont gave closing speeches, although John Lamont missed the target altogether and said that we should work with Westminster—of course we shall—but said also that there is no evidence that lowering the limit will make a difference. I am afraid that we simply see things differently. John Lamont is in a tiny minority, probably even among members of his party.
Paul Martin suggested that we could legislate our way out of the issue. Absolutely not. We have to change our culture and we have to set appropriate limits for what happens on our roads. A limit of 50mg is working right across Europe, and 50mg is the limit that we want here. It will be a missed opportunity if we do not accept Mr McAskill's motion today. It refers clearly to the existing 80mg limit.
We have to remember that the issue that we are debating is about people. Few people who have reached my sort of age will not have been exposed to the consequences of drink-driving. In the past 10 years, I have witnessed two specific instances. They did not involve personal friends; they were incidents that I came across. In France, someone came out of a side road and knocked a motorcyclist over. I was on the scene within two minutes. The necks of two people were broken. They were young people, and they were both dead—I had to go forward and check that they were dead. The drink from the driver's breath could be smelt from a great distance away.
In Edinburgh, I witnessed another incident at a junction, at which a man in a van drove into the side of another vehicle. I had to hold that man's scalp back on to his head. He could not see—not just because of his injuries, but because of the drink. He was not wearing a seat belt, and he had taken drink.
Those are the sorts of incident that drive home to anyone who is exposed to them the absolute need to engage in this issue. I urge members to support the motion that Kenny MacAskill has moved today.