Meeting of the Parliament 18 November 2014
The current drink-drive limit was set in 1965. Since then, I am glad to say, perceptions have changed. Public and scientific understanding of the risks has increased dramatically. However, for many folk there is still some confusion as to what the existing limit allows. Is it a pint or a glass of wine? What constitutes a unit, and how many can someone have and still drive legally?
In future the message could not be clearer: if you have had even one drink, you should not drive. The evidence is irrefutable. Drinking even a small amount deteriorates drivers’ reaction times, concentration and motoring skills. It can instil false confidence, impair co-ordination and weaken the judgment of factors such as distance and speed.
As we have heard, the number of drink-drive accidents and casualties has halved in recent years. However, the latest Transport Scotland data shows that there were 440 drink-drive accidents in 2012, causing 580 people to be injured and 10 fatalities.
A 2010 study by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence found that drivers intoxicated to the existing limit, 80mg, were 11 times more likely to be involved in a fatal car crash than drivers who had no alcohol in their blood. Reduced to 50mg, that falls to three times as likely. In short, drinking at all increases the chance of a collision.
Why not adopt a zero-tolerance approach, then? Ideally, no one with alcohol in their system would get behind the wheel. However, we understand that that would cause practical and technical difficulties.
A study by University College London estimates that reducing the limit to 50mg would still prevent 65 deaths and 250 serious injuries a year if adopted across the UK. The evidence from Ireland is that it will encourage a culture change that will deliver year-on-year improvements. That in itself is a great step forward. I hope that the rest of the United Kingdom follows Scotland’s lead.
I cannot support the Conservative amendment. I am afraid that Margaret Mitchell did not set out a coherent case for it. The mandatory penalty, which is to lose one’s licence for 12 months, is still proportionate for the new level that we are introducing. Of course, judicial discretion allows for exceptional circumstances.
The Justice Committee took evidence on the issue a couple of weeks ago. Chief Superintendent lain Murray was clear in his evidence to us. He said that lowering or varying the penalty based on the amount of alcohol consumed would reduce the deterrent effect and that we should not take account of
“whether somebody was three times or six times more likely to kill themselves or somebody else.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 October 2014; c 40.]
He was very firm in his view that we should have a single penalty.
Getting the message across to every single driver that there is no safe amount that they can drink before taking control of a vehicle will arguably require the most extensive driver education campaign ever. I have some concerns about whether that can be achieved in just two and a half weeks.
I am sympathetic to Labour’s amendment, and I wonder whether the impact of alcohol on drivers the next day needs to be more prominent in the publicity material. How many people know that it can take roughly 13 hours to be alcohol free after drinking four pints of strong lager or ale? As Dr Rice alluded to in his evidence to the committee, it is still a common misconception that coffee, sleep, a shower, exercise or a full Scottish breakfast will speed up the removal of alcohol from one’s system. It does not.
I support the “Don’t drink and drive” approach, but it must be accompanied by sufficient education so that we can reach the zero-tolerance approach.
We are able to modify the drink-drive limit using the significant powers devolved through the Scotland Act 2012. Steered by the Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Scotland Mike Moore, it is testament to our commitment to strengthen the powers of this Parliament. Scottish Liberal Democrats will always support evidence-based efforts to make our roads safer and to save lives; we will therefore back the motion.
16:08