Meeting of the Parliament 18 November 2014
I am delighted to be taking part in the debate because, as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said, I have been campaigning to have the drink-driving limit reduced from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg since I entered the Parliament in 2007.
Indeed, after a chat with the cabinet secretary in 2007, I wrote to him asking him to take action on the matter. I then took part in several debates on the issue: the first in October 2007 and a further two in 2008. I also hosted a number of events in the Parliament. It soon became clear that there was overwhelming support in this Parliament for reducing the drink-driving limit—indeed, one vote in Parliament was unanimous. However, we had no power to do anything about the matter at that time.
After those debates, I continually pressed the matter with the UK Government, which eventually agreed to devolve powers over the issue via the Scotland Act 2012. That was rapidly followed by the Scottish Government announcing in March 2013 its intention to reduce the limit, following consultation. That rapid action by the Scottish Government was music to my ears, and it contrasted markedly with the typical prevarication of Westminster.
Because of the UK Government’s position, it has not been easy to get a reduction in the drink-driving limit in Scotland. I believe that many lives have been lost or blighted because of the delays caused by the UK Government. As far back as 1997 and again in 1998, the UK Government said that it intended to reduce the limit to 50mg. However, in March 2000, it announced that, because of possible moves to harmonise drink-driving limits in the European Union, it had decided not to lower the limit. In January 2001, the EU did indeed adopt a recommendation proposing harmonisation of the drink-driving limit at 50mg or below, but the UK Government—true to form—announced that it had no plans to reduce the limit as the recommendation was not binding on member states.
The UK Government continued to procrastinate until it said in the second review of its road safety strategy, published in February 2007, that it would keep the case for a reduction in the blood alcohol limit under review. Then, in June 2007, it said that it was once more in favour of a 50mg limit but wanted to see evidence of enforcement of the current 80mg limit by the police before it published a consultation paper later in the year to gauge public opinion. That consultation paper never appeared, and so the prevarication continued and more lives were lost.
Subsequently, I chased up the UK Government in January 2008 and again in April 2008, when I was told that it was pressing ahead with the consultation and that it would give careful consideration to the views of interested parties in Scotland. With the support of the Scottish Government, I continued to press the matter and, eventually, in 2010 the UK Government agreed to devolve powers over the issue.
As a result of the new law there will undoubtedly be fewer accidents and lives lost in Scotland. However, I regret that a similar reduction in the drink-driving limit will not apply in the rest of the UK to cut the loss of life. Every life is precious, so it can only be a good thing that the new law will result in lives being saved. It is significant that, once it had the power, the Scottish Government acted so quickly—unlike Westminster, where the limit is still 80mg, which is unlike every European country bar Malta.
We are fortunate that we have a Scottish Government that is not in the hip pocket of the big booze companies and therefore has no conflict of interest when enacting legislation for the good of the people of Scotland. Long may that continue. My position on drink driving is this: if you are driving, then do not drink; and if you are drinking, then do not drive.
15:54