Meeting of the Parliament 18 November 2014
No, I have only four minutes. I want to support Margaret Mitchell’s amendment but she will need to clarify what it means, for goodness’ sake.
The committee wholly supported the reduction to 50mg in 100ml. We were concerned not about people having a drink in the pub and then taking to their car, which they should not do, but about what happens the morning after. As my colleague has stolen my line about the Scottish breakfast, I return to my own line, which is that Irn-Bru and a bacon roll and just having a cold shower and taking a walk with the dog will not do; people will still be over the limit.
The medical evidence was that the liver functions like goods going through the supermarket checkout: things can only go through one at a time, and each drink has to go through at a certain rate; it cannot go through more quickly in any way. I hope that members can follow the metaphor—I did at the time.
However, for me, the most important thing is information, and not only over Christmas. When we move into the summer and spring, people are out in the sun having wine and so on. We need cross-border information. That is particularly important in the Scottish Borders.
I know that there are going to be electronic signs on gantries on the motorways, but I suggest that there should also be signs at motorway service stations—I see the cabinet secretary nodding, so he is obviously ahead of me on that. I am glad that the adverts are on ITV Border, to give it a wee plug. We do not get STV in the Scottish Borders, so it was important that ITV Border was encapsulated in the advertising.
Unlike my usual style, I am going to be a bit controversial. I know that this issue is not devolved, but I am slightly concerned about random testing, not because I in any way support people drinking and driving but because random testing for me strays into the area of civil liberties. We have been there with stop and search. The police said that most stop and searches are consensual, but if a policeman asks to search someone, the person will think that they will be on shaky ground if they say no, so they will probably just say yes, because they have nothing to hide. The public say that they do not mind random testing, but I do not know whether every motorist who is pulled over for no reason whatever and who then rolls down their window and has a policeman lean in to see whether they can smell any alcohol on their breath will be that happy. There is a balance between taking the public with us and saying that people can just be stopped in any event.
We all know about when the police stop someone, who then rolls down their window and is told, “Hen, your brake light’s not functioning”—we all know fine what that is about. However, the police said in evidence to the Justice Committee that they can stop people anyway, without having any cause for concern about how they are driving or the condition of their vehicle. I did not know that that was the case, and I would like the situation to be clarified. I leave that with the cabinet secretary. Everybody says that they are in favour of random testing, but if we had the power and we started to do it on a large scale, the public might get a little bit worried. I can see that Monsieur Allard does not agree—I said that I would be controversial—but I think that the issue is worth considering.
16:21