Meeting of the Parliament 18 November 2014
I will address both amendments. The first one—Graeme Pearson’s—is absolutely fine and dandy. In fact, a great deal of the committee conversation and interrogation of witnesses a week or so ago was about the morning-after effects of alcohol. It was mostly concerned with people being unsure about whether they would be caught the next day—quite innocently, having been at a wedding perhaps.
I do not understand Margaret Mitchell’s amendment so perhaps she can clarify in her closing speech. I will read out the motion as it would be amended:
“That the Parliament supports the reduction of the drink drive limit, which will help to save lives and make Scotland’s roads safer; considers that the application and penalties imposed should be proportionate”.
Does it mean that the 50mg limit should not be applied to some people who are stopped and are over it? Does it also mean that, if it is applied to them, they should not have a mandatory ban for the year? We cannot do that; there is mandatory banning. The 50mg limit is just being substituted for the 80mg one.
Margaret Mitchell rose—