S3M-3125 Drink Driving

Scottish Parliament

Thursday 18 December 2008

[THE PRESIDING OFFICER opened the meeting at 09:15]

Drink Driving

The Presiding Officer (Alex Fergusson): Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S3M-3125, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on drink driving.
... ... ...

11:30

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):





In the light of Margaret Smith's reference to the Institute of Advanced Motorists, I draw Parliament's attention to my entry in the register of members' interests, in which I have declared my membership of that organisation.

I am glad that we have had this opportunity to discuss this important issue and am heartened by the broad consensus on the view that the current levels of death and injury through drink driving are unacceptable. That thread has run through all the speeches. The casualty figures are moving in the right direction—the number of deaths and serious injuries in 2007 is 45 per cent lower than it was in the mid-1990s, but there is much more to do. One death is one too many.

I will respond to various points that have been made in the debate. Richard Simpson is one of many members on the Labour benches who support a change from the 80mg blood alcohol level, although there are varying opinions on what it should be reduced to. The key issue is that having alcohol in one's system leads to a reduction in appropriate decision-making powers and a diminution of motor skills. Alcohol also reduces inhibitions and multiplies a range of other effects. At 9.40, Richard Baker said that he thinks it would be better if there were a lower limit.

Labour members have got the message; it is just not set out in their amendment.

Bill Aitken made a number of excellent points on drug driving. I note that no one disagreed in any material sense with his comments and I hope that there will be very substantial support for his amendment, even though in supporting it we will be left with a Labour Party amendment that still misses the point. In 1998, the Department for Transport at Westminster made it quite clear that reducing the blood alcohol limit to 50mg would prevent 50 deaths. It is time for us to express that view and to ensure, in a spirit of partnership, that Westminster takes account of it, given that the rest of Great Britain will benefit as a result.

Richard Baker: In a spirit of partnership, we, of course, welcome that limit. However, does the minister accept that members on the Government benches have argued not for a 50mg level alone but for three different limits? I believe that that makes the case for having a full consultation and taking the evidence-based approach that I am calling for. Surely the Department for Transport is looking for constructive engagement from the Scottish Government on this matter.

Stewart Stevenson: On three previous occasions, the policy at Westminster has been to reduce the limit to 50mg. The 11th question in the consultation documents asks,

"What evidence are you able to offer"

to support a change in the limit. The document is not seeking a real change; it is simply asking for more evidence, even though the Labour Administration at Westminster has suggested on three occasions that the limit be reduced to 50mg.

Bill Aitken also referred to Romberg's test, in which people have to estimate how long 30 seconds is. A few members—not, I hope, all the Liberals—should consider that point.

Ross Finnie highlighted certain points that the BMA raised in its briefing note, including slow reaction times, late braking and overconfidence. In an intervention on Mr Finnie, Bill Butler referred to the considerable body of evidence on the subject and Dave Thompson, who has been working on this matter for a long time, made a great deal of sense when he talked about crash risks.

Richard Simpson spoke about three groups of people who are at risk. He focused on the borderline group—the people who drink but try to stay under the limit—and suggested that particular difficulties arise with them. If we were to reduce the limit, there is little doubt that we would make those people think much more carefully about the implications of drinking at all. We would also see a reduction in people's drinking, as has been seen right across Europe.

Richard Simpson also mentioned interesting evidence from Australia and New Zealand and spoke about technical measures, although such measures alone cannot solve the problem. For example, a person who wants to continue to drive can get someone else to breathe into an in-car breathalyser.

Alasdair Allan talked about rural difficulties. He said that we are not against drink and we are not against driving, but we are against conjoining the two. He referred to the effect that drink driving can have on families.

Cathie Craigie said that a small minority of people offend. That is certainly true, but those people have a disproportionate effect on families and safety across Scotland. Cathie Craigie would go for a zero limit, as would one or two others including my colleague Brian Adam, and she called for more efforts from the Scottish and UK Governments. We are prepared to step up to that challenge: I hope that the UK Government is too.

Margaret Smith referred to EU recommendations of eight years ago and said that most EU countries have responded to those recommendations. Aileen Campbell gave more examples of personal experience. Bill Butler welcomed the debate and said that the numbers of deaths related to drink driving had been broadly the same for about 10 years. If that is not an argument for doing something now, what is? He also said that there would be 65 fewer deaths if the limit were 50mg. That is pretty strong evidence.

Rob Gibson raised cultural issues that relate especially to the Highlands, but which also relate to other places. Robert Brown and John Lamont gave closing speeches, although John Lamont missed the target altogether and said that we should work with Westminster—of course we shall—but said also that there is no evidence that lowering the limit will make a difference. I am afraid that we simply see things differently. John Lamont is in a tiny minority, probably even among members of his party.

Paul Martin suggested that we could legislate our way out of the issue. Absolutely not. We have to change our culture and we have to set appropriate limits for what happens on our roads. A limit of 50mg is working right across Europe, and 50mg is the limit that we want here. It will be a missed opportunity if we do not accept Mr McAskill's motion today. It refers clearly to the existing 80mg limit.

We have to remember that the issue that we are debating is about people. Few people who have reached my sort of age will not have been exposed to the consequences of drink-driving. In the past 10 years, I have witnessed two specific instances. They did not involve personal friends; they were incidents that I came across. In France, someone came out of a side road and knocked a motorcyclist over. I was on the scene within two minutes. The necks of two people were broken. They were young people, and they were both dead—I had to go forward and check that they were dead. The drink from the driver's breath could be smelt from a great distance away.

In Edinburgh, I witnessed another incident at a junction, at which a man in a van drove into the side of another vehicle. I had to hold that man's scalp back on to his head. He could not see—not just because of his injuries, but because of the drink. He was not wearing a seat belt, and he had taken drink.

Those are the sorts of incident that drive home to anyone who is exposed to them the absolute need to engage in this issue. I urge members to support the motion that Kenny MacAskill has moved today.

11:40