Meeting of the Parliament 18 November 2014
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and voice my support for the lowering of the drink-driving limit. Sir Peter North’s report indicated that that was a highly appropriate thing to do, and the public clearly support it.
Those driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs endanger themselves and our communities. We should focus on refreshing awareness of the practical steps that can be taken to deal with the problem. The penalties imposed on people need to be effective, acting both as adequate punishment and a deterrent against future drink driving, and they should safeguard the public from the dangers of such activity.
In addition, any changes made to the limit must be accompanied by a complementary public awareness campaign, as Labour proposes. Across the UK each year, there are about 430 deaths and 16,000 injuries because of drink driving and associated drug driving, and a proportionate amount of those occur here in Scotland.
There is strong public support for lowering the drink-driving limit. Estimates show that up to 17 lives could be saved and many injuries could be prevented annually in Scotland by reducing the limit to 50mg per 100ml of blood, which is the standard in most EU countries. There are those who would argue for an even lower level, but this proposal is a welcome step and, as I say, it is supported by the public.
I invite the minister to address a few issues relating to testing and sentencing for drink-driving offences. Is it correct that the police have unlimited powers to stop cars but may only proceed to a breathalyser test if they suspect that the driver has been drinking? Would the minister want to change that?
The North report asserts that breathalysers have now become much more accurate and thus the statutory option for blood and urine testing is no longer required. The proposal for a breathalyser test level is now, I believe, 25mg. Is that indeed the trigger level that should be adopted? Under the previous rules, flexibility was given up to 40mg, so what will the new guidance be? How long will it take to recalibrate the current testing equipment to the new standards? If we do not get that right, lawyers will, quite rightly, act to protect their clients.
Can the cabinet secretary guarantee that matters of this sort are fully in hand before he introduces the new measure?