Meeting of the Parliament 18 November 2014
Drink driving has been a scourge on Scotland’s roads for too long, leading to completely unnecessary injuries and deaths, and devastating families and communities across the country. It is absolutely right that the Scottish Government is taking this decisive action.
Around one in 10 deaths on Scotland’s roads involve drivers who are over the limit. As Alison McInnes said, having even one drink is enough to make someone three times as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash. That is why lowering the blood alcohol limit is the right thing to do to make our roads safer, save lives and prevent more families from having to deal with losing a loved one as a result of drink driving.
The new limit will send out a clear message that driving after one drink is unacceptable. As other members said, I hope that the rest of the UK will follow Scotland’s example on this important issue and come into line with the rest of Europe. I agree with Margaret Dekker of Scotland’s Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers, who stated:
“To my mind, it is only a start to eradicating the scourge of drink driving in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 October 2014; c 45.]
Our European neighbours have already introduced the same or an even lower limit. A lot of Polish people who live in Scotland know that the limit is a lot lower in Poland, at 20mg. Only in Malta and the rest of the UK will the limit will still be at 80mg after this Parliament passes the relevant measure. For example, the Republic of Ireland lowered its drink-drive limit to 50mg in 2011, with a further lower limit of 20mg for specified drivers, such as those who have recently passed their test.
France, which has a different social attitude towards drink driving, has a 50mg limit, but it has a long tradition of random breath testing. The Justice Committee was told by Dr Rice of Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems that
“15 per cent of French drivers are tested every year, but the numbers who are tested in the UK are in single figures.”—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 28 October 2014; c 52.]
There is a case for random breath testing but, unfortunately, it is another of the policy areas that is reserved to Westminster. I remember the numerous road safety campaigns in the French media warning that police will conduct random breath testing on local roads, which worked well.
I am sympathetic to Margaret Mitchell's amendment, but only as it reads, not how she explained it in her speech. I agree that the application and penalties that are imposed should be proportionate. However, I cannot support the amendment now. As we heard at committee, the 50mg limit is proportionate. We have the limit just now and we have the penalties that we have just now. If we are thinking about lowering the limit further at some point, I agree that we will need to have the powers over the penalties devolved here. That will be of benefit to us.
Margaret Dekker, of Scotland's Campaign against Irresponsible Drivers, said:
“We would like to see a zero limit.”
A lot of people ask for a zero limit, but I do not particularly agree with that view. As I said, other countries, such as Poland, have a lower limit. If we could have all the powers devolved, I might consider it. We know that the Scottish Taxi Federation supports a zero-tolerance approach, because too many people have been the victims of drink drivers, and the Road Haulage Association supports more stringent drink-driving regulations.
I think that there is a case to have all the relevant powers devolved. Lowering the blood alcohol limit is the right thing to do, and I am looking forward to continuing on the road of eradicating the scourge of drink driving in Scotland.
16:12