The next item of business is a debate on motion number 11567, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on lowering the drink-drive limit. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now, and I call on Mr MacAskill to speak to and move the motion. Cabinet Secretary, 10 minutes please. Deputy Presiding Officer, members will be aware that the Scottish Government has long argued that a lower drink-drive limit will save lives and help make Scotland's roads safer. In addition, some members in this chamber have also long campaigned on this important issue. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to Dave Thompson, who has been a tireless campaigner for a lower drink-drive limit and first raised the matter in Parliament way back in October 2007. Earlier this month, we saw the 50th anniversary of the first anti-drink-drive television adverts in the UK. The existing drink-drive limit was introduced in 1967. Social attitudes towards drink-driving were very different when it was first introduced. It is fair to say that, back then, hard as it may now be to believe, many people really did not think that it was irresponsible or dangerous to get behind the wheel of a car after having been drinking. Since then, attitudes towards drink-drivers have hardened considerably and understandably. A survey of UK drivers published earlier this month found that 91 per cent agreed that drink-driving was unacceptable. 92 per cent of people said that they would feel ashamed if they were caught drinking and driving. That compares to more than half of male drivers and nearly two thirds of young male drivers who admitted drink-driving on a weekly basis in 1979. However, the sad truth is that there remain a persistent minority who, despite repeated warnings, put their lives and the lives of others at risk by getting behind the wheel after drinking alcohol. In 2012-13, 4,730 people were convicted of drink- and drug-driving offences in Scotland's courts. That may be a dramatic fall when compared to the 8,145 people convicted of those offences in 2003-04, but too many people are still choosing to ignore the warnings and drink and drive. The consequences of drink-driving can be tragic. Drink-driving costs lives. That is why it is right that we take action to reduce the risk on our roads. Last month, reported road casualties Scotland 2013 was published. The report revealed that 580 casualties were estimated to be due to drink-drive accidents in Scotland in 2012. Around 10 fatalities were estimated to be due to drink-drive accidents in Scotland in 2012—a fall in 2011 figures—but for the average, for the last four years, remains at 20 fatalities. Casualties, resulting from drink-drive accidents, fell by over 50 per cent since 2007, from 1,270 to 580. In 2013, 2.4 per cent of drivers involved in injury accidents who were asked for a breath test registered a positive reading or refused to take the test. While we welcome the reduction in the number of casualties, those figures still show that over the last four years an estimated one in 10 deaths in Scotland's roads involves drivers with a blood alcohol reading that is above the current limit. That is 20 deaths each year with another 560 suffering injury, 100 of those being seriously injured. I know that some have said that our efforts should concentrate on enforcing the existing limit more strictly and that there is no need to reduce the drink-drive limit. Let me be clear that that ignores the scientific evidence that the risks of driving under the influence of alcohol start to increase well below the current legal limit. Indeed, there is now a wealth of research indicating that the impairment begins with any departure from zero blood alcohol concentration. With a blood alcohol level of between 50 and 80 microgams, vision is affected, slowing reactions to red lights and tail lights. Drivers are more likely to drive too fast and to misjudge distances when approaching bends. Motorcyclists will find it difficult to drive in a straight line. BMA evidence shows that the relative risk of being involved in a road traffic crash for drivers with a reading of 80 per 100 millilitres of blood was 10 times higher than for drivers with a zero blood alcohol reading. The relative crash risks for drivers with a reading of 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood was more than twice the level for drivers with a zero alcohol reading. The independent review of drink and drug driving law, conducted by Sir Peter North in 2010, concluded that reducing the drink-drive limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams will save lives. The current drink-drive limit has had its day. If we look at the drink-driving limits across Europe, it is only the UK and Malta, which have a legal blood alcohol limit of 80 milligrams of alcohol in every 100 millilitres of blood. Reducing the limit to a lower level of 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres to bring Scotland into line with most other European countries is the right approach and will make Scotland's roads safer. I first raised the matter of the drink-drive limit with the UK Government back in 2008. It is a real shame that it has taken until now to reach a position where we are able to reduce the drink-drive limit to make Scotland's roads safer. The Scotland Act 2012 devolved the power to set the drink-drive limit. We welcomed the fact that we have this power to make Scotland's roads safer through a lower limit, however we consider this very limited transfer of power was a missed opportunity. We wanted a package of powers that would allow the police to carry out breath testing of drivers any time, anywhere. We also called for powers to consider differential limits, for example, for young and novice drivers and the ability to change the penalties for drink-driving. However, those were not granted by the UK Government. It is right that this Parliament should have the powers to set appropriate and proportionate penalties for drink-driving. I welcomed Margaret Mitchell's amendment, which seeks this Parliament's views on drink-driving penalties, which I presume she supports the call for such powers to be granted to this Parliament. We are clear that the current automatic 12-month driving ban is appropriate at the current limit and will remain appropriate at the lower limit. There is strong evidence that drivers with a blood alcohol reading between 50 and 80 micrograms are significantly impaired and an automatic ban is appropriate to deter people from drinking and driving. We will continue to argue for greater powers to tackle drink-driving. The Scottish Government's submission to the Smith commission makes the case that giving this Parliament full responsibility for the law and road traffic offences will help to tackle drink-driving, make Scotland's roads safer and address the current anomalies in the boundaries between reserved and devolved areas. We want the lower drink-drive limit to result in less drink-driving, not more convicted drivers. To ensure that drivers are aware that the lower limit is coming into effect, the Scottish Government yesterday launched a public information campaign that is aimed at informing all adults of driving age in Scotland. The campaign comprises advertising and television, video on demand and radio, partnership and stakeholder engagement, fuelled marketing, website updates, social media and PR, and includes materials relating to the effects of alcohol the morning after a night out. However, in finishing, let me be clear that whatever the limit may be, it should not be forgotten that alcohol at any level impairs driving and our central message remains, do not drink and drive. I therefore move the motion in my name. I am happy to accept the amendments from Labour and Tory on the basis that we are not seeking to reduce the current period of disqualification for the reduction to 50. However, we would welcome the opportunity to consider what further powers may be available, what further action could be taken if we had control over penalties. Mr Pearson, you have seven minutes—a generous seven minutes, should you wish. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Let me state from the outset that Scottish Labour supports the Government's motion, and I raise to offer an amendment from Scottish Labour. There is no reservation about our support for the Government's intentions in this matter. It is the right thing to do. It is the right time to do it. We hope that, if implemented at the end of our debate, such a change that we anticipate will bring about a greater level of safety on Scottish roads and protect the citizens of Scotland across the whole of our country. The cabinet secretary has been good enough to rehearse statistics for us, and they are maddening in the fact that it does not need to be that way. There will be very few people in this chamber who will listen to this debate, whose families have not been touched by an incident in which a person under the influence of drink, and not as we sometimes imagine a drunk driver, but someone whose abilities have been impaired through alcohol, has caused an accident, has created enormous angst, injury and sometimes, unfortunately, death. In 2010, Sir Peter North, commissioned by the Labour Party in the UK, reviewed all the circumstances and recommended that the blood alcohol content should be reduced to 50 milligrams. He indicated that, thereby, in his estimation, up to 168 deaths would be saved across the United Kingdom in the first year of implementation. It is, with some depression, that we note that the UK Government refused to accept Sir Peter North's recommendations. That, as the cabinet secretary acknowledged, was a real missed opportunity, and one that one would hope the UK would revisit sooner rather than later. Today, it is a bit like the banning and smoking. Mr MacAskill was quite right in the 60s and 70s that the notion of, particularly men, I have got to say, getting behind the wheel of a motor car whilst impaired and, in those days, often drunk behind a wheel, was accepted as part of the culture of the time. There was machismo involved and everybody had the ability to make a judgment on whether or not they were fit for the purpose of driving. With the introduction of the alchemeters and the breath tests, that has changed. However, we need to acknowledge that, even as adults in a modern Scotland, we became involved in all sorts of debates and arguments about the fairness of the administration of the technologies to detect people who were impaired, and we made it a very difficult task to produce people within our police officers to obtain the evidence that was necessary for prosecution. I am pleased that much of that is now behind us and that we realise that this is a public safety issue. It is not an issue about criminalising members of our community. I would note, because I anticipate that there will not be much antagonism this afternoon in this debate, that all in the chamber today support the Government's intentions. However, I did some research before coming to the chamber in relation to how those changes affect various communities. It should be noted that in the south-west of Ireland, when it was indicated that it would reduce the standard from 80mg per 100l to 50mg per 100mg, in Kerry, the council moved that there should be an amendment to the intention that would allow the Gardeau to issue permits to local members of the community who were trusted and respected members to enable them to drive with amounts of alcohol beyond 50mg. It was debated with some strength and proposed to the justice secretary in Dublin. I am pleased to say that no further steps were taken in that regard and no decision was offered. It merely fell by the wayside through lack of support. It indicates the concerns that exist within rural communities about the impacts that occur in relation to those changes. We should acknowledge that. Hence, the amendment that I proposed today, which ensures an educational and media campaign, is part of the main Government motion. It will be important that we further educate the community. If we tell the community 10 times that we need to do it 10 times more and 10 times more, only when they are personally involved by the outcomes from incidents involving drivers under the influence of alcohol do people take those things seriously. We need to get it into the minds of people such as me. Those are not evil people. Those are careless people who do not think ahead of time. There is a duty on the Government and on this Parliament to bring to their attentions now the impacts of what could happen, particularly over the festive period. Does the member share my view that we should introduce a graduated driving license scheme for young drivers? The member will know that the proposals are that there is no alcohol during that training period until they have a full unrestricted licence. On a personal basis, I think that the member makes a very important point and one that I would support. Although I have to tell him that I was at Stranrar Academy only yesterday, and out of the blue that very issue was raised. The young person concerned thought that it was very unfair that we would treat young drivers any differently from mature drivers such as me. Although I did raise the fact that statistically young drivers are more likely to be involved in road accidents in any case, whether without the impairment of alcohol. In bringing my contribution to a close, I hope that the Government invests the necessary financial support to ensure that an educational and media campaign is launched. I invite the cabinet secretary to examine the possibility of the modern-day alcohol meters being provided in some form to the general public so that they can understand the impact of alcohol that they consume. I have no knowledge of the costs of such things and whether it would be a practical solution, but I trust that, as the debate progresses, the Parliament, as one, agrees that the motion and the amendment from the Labour Party is supported and subject to the contribution from the Conservative Party will take a judgment on their amendment through the debate. I now call on Margaret Mitchell to speak to and move amendment 11567.2. Margaret Mitchell, you have five minutes or thereby. The Scottish Conservatives support initiatives to make Scotland's roads safer. The pain, heartache and devastation that families and the victims of drunk drivers suffer is, frankly, unimaginable. The new 50g therefore represents an important measure to try and ensure that no family has to endure this experience. However, last week it was reported that no fewer than 10,000 officers will be responsible for a drink-driving crackdown over the festive season. At the same time that these officers are being tasked to pull over vast numbers of people for random spot checks, we know, depressingly, that crimes such as domestic abuse will escalate. It is essential that, in seeking to legitimately prioritise manpower to crackdown and drink driving over Christmas and New Year, that deployment is proportionate.  For since its inception, Police Scotland has attracted justified criticism as the culture of target setting has been exposed. Only a few months ago, concerns about the implementation of Police Scotland's stop-and-search policy were well aired in this chamber, and the targeting of speeding in general and in certain areas specifically has attracted adverse headlines. While the chief constable states that rank-and-file officers do not have numerical target place on them, the SPA and HMICS have both published reports in May and July this year. Point of order. Forgive me, Ms Mitchell. A point of order from Sandra White. Point of order, Presiding Officer. Could Margaret Mitchell please mention the actual motion and amendment that she is speaking to? I haven't heard anything about it at all. Thank you for that request for a point of order, but it's not a point of order. It's a matter for Margaret Mitchell. The word she chooses to... I suggest Sandra White listens carefully. She's obviously lost a thread of the argument here. This year, which highlighted perceived pressures on police officers not just to meet but to exceed targets as part of their proso process. I just want to complete this point. The SPA report identified evidence of officers' perceived pressure to contact searches. Meanwhile, HMICS report found evidence of detailed processes that exist across Scotland to monitor individual officers' productivity and their personal contribution to KPIs and targets. Consequently, it is important to stress that lowering the drink drive limit should not and must not become about providing an opportunity for Police Scotland to fill quotas or to meet targets. I'll give way to Elaine Murray. I just wondered if you could clarify the intention of your amendment, because the way that I read it suggested that the application of penalties involved for the drink driving limit should be proportionate, which almost could suggest that you should take a more lenient view on those people who are between the 50 and 80. Obviously, we would have difficulties in supporting that if that is the intention of the amendment. I'll come to that point specifically if you allow me to develop my argument. Father, mother, cabinet secretary and today's motion emphasise that the new drink driving limit brings Scotland into line with most of Europe. Despite that, during the consultation phase and the Justice Committee evidence sessions, the Scottish Government has failed to make clear that, while penalties for drink driving in Europe vary widely, they tend to be less severe than those in the UK. In France, for example, the penalties for a driver with a BAC of between 50mg and 80mg usually consist of a fine with stiffer penalties for drivers who are well over the limit, including a more substantial fine and a licensed suspension of up to three years. In the UK, the penalties for driving or attempting to drive, while above the legal limit, currently 80g are set by Westminster, including six months in prison and up to £5,000 fine and or a driving ban for at least one year. Those penalties are stiff and I therefore welcome the Labour amendment calling for an accompanying education and media campaign to cover the morning after effects of alcohol. That should help to ensure that an otherwise law-abiding individual does not unwittingly find themselves just marginally over the new legal limit and criminalised with a potentially far-reaching adverse impact on their livelihoods. S&P has made it quite clear that they think that the drink driving penalty should be devolved to Holyrood. At the same time as recently as last week, no attempt had been made to work with or even consult Westminster Justice Ministers about this important issue. The result, bizarrely, means that drivers who live in England, travelling in Scotland who are over the 50g but under the 80g limit, potentially face severe penalties for a crime that has no statutory basis out of the border. The amendment in my name seeks to achieve two things. Firstly, given past events, it calls on Police Scotland to enforce new drink drive limits proportionally rather than a target-setting exercise. Secondly, it encourages debate about the application of penalties for drink driving in Scotland. To date, it is evident that S&P Government has not fully thought through the full implications of a measure that, if properly and proportionally implemented, has the potential to prevent the misery that can result from drink driving to save lives. I move the member in my name. We now move to open debate. I call on Dave Thompson to be followed by Dr Richard Simpson. Four-minute speeches with time for interventions. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am delighted to be taking part in the debate today. As the cabinet secretary has said, I have been campaigning since I entered this Parliament in 2007 to have the drink driving limit reduced from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg. Indeed, after a chat with the cabinet secretary for justice in 2007, I wrote asking him to take action on this matter. I then took part in several debates on the issue of the first in October 2007 and a further two in 2008 and hosted a number of events in the Parliament. It soon became clear that there was overwhelming support in this Parliament to reduce the drink driving limit. Indeed, one vote was unanimous, but we had no power to do anything about it at that time. After those debates, I continually pressed the matter with the UK Government, which eventually agreed to devolve the issue via the Scotland Act 2012. That was rapidly followed by the Scottish Government announcing in March 2013 its intention to reduce the limit following consultation. That rapid action by the Scottish Government was music to my ears and contrasts markedly with the typical prevarication of Westminster. Getting a reduction in the drink driving limit in Scotland has not been easy because of the UK Government's position. Many lives, I believe, have been lost or blighted because of the delays caused by them. As far back as 1997 and again in 1998, the UK Government said that it intended to reduce the limit by 2.50mg, but in March 2000 it then announced that it had decided not to lower the limit because of possible moves to harmonise drink driving limits in the European Union. In January 2001, the EU did indeed adopt a recommendation proposing harmonisation of the drink driving limit at 50mg or below, but the UK Government, through to forum, announced that it had no plans to reduce the limit as the recommendation was not binding on member states. The UK Government continued to procrastinate until, in the second review of the road safety strategy, published in February 2007, it said that it would keep the case for a reduction in the blood alcohol limit under review. Then again in June 2007, it said that it was once more in favour of a 50mg limit, but first wanted to see evidence of enforcement of the current 80mg limit by the police before they would publish a consultation paper later in the year to gauge public opinion. That consultation paper never appeared and so the prevarication continued and more lives were lost. Subsequently, I chased it up in January 2008 and again in April 2008, when I was told that they were pressing ahead with the consultation and that they would give careful consideration to the views of interested parties in Scotland. I continued to press the matter with the support of the Scottish Government and eventually in 2010 the UK Government agreed to devolve the issue. Undoubtedly, as a result of this law, there will be fewer accidents and lives lost in Scotland and it is to my regret that a similar reduction is not applying in the rest of the UK to also cut the loss of lives. Every life is precious and as the new law results and lives being saved, this can only be a good thing. It is significant that the Scottish Government, once it had power, acted so quickly, unlike Westminster, where the limit is still 80mg, unlike every European country, bar, malta. We are fortunate that we have a Scottish Government that is not in the hip pocket of the big booze companies and therefore has no conflict of interest when enacting legislation for the good of the people of Scotland and long may that continue. In closing, my position on drink driving is this. If you are driving, then don't drink and if you are drinking, then don't drive. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and voice my support for the lowering of the drink driving limit. Sir Peter North's report indicated that this was a highly appropriate thing to do and the public clearly supported it. Driving under the influence of alcohol are drugs and dangers themselves and our community and we should focus on refreshing the practical steps that can be taken to deal with this problem and the penalties imposed on people need to be effective acting as both adequate punishment and a deterrent against future drink and driving and 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 that Labour proposes. Across the UK, there are about 430 deaths and I believe about 16,000 injuries due to drink and driving but also associated drug driving each year and with a proportional amount of those occurring here in Scotland. There is strong public support for lowering the drink driving limit. Estimates show that up to 17 lives and many injuries could be saved annually in Scotland by reducing the limit to 50 milligrams per 100 mils and the standard of most EU countries. There are those who would argue for even on a lower level but this proposal is a welcome step, as I say, supported by the public. I would like to invite the minister to address a few issues relating to testing and sentencing in relation to drink and driving. Is it correct that the police have unlimited power to stop cars but may only proceed to a breathalyzer test if they suspect that the driver has been drinking and would he want to change that? The North report asserts that breathalyzers have now become much more accurate and thus the statutory option for blood and urine testing is no longer required. The proposal for a breathalyzer test level is now, I believe, 25 mcg. Is this indeed the trigger level to be adopted? Under the previous rules, there was flexibility given up to 40 mcg. 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, there are lawyers who will act quite rightly to protect their clients. Can the cabinet secretary guarantee that matters of this sort are fully in hand before introducing the new measure? I thank the member for giving the introduction. I think that regarding the recalibrating of the breath testing that had happened last year and I think that that was very important because of course it's reserved and one of the powers will be great to have devolved to having the recalibrating of our breath test being devolved will be a great improvement in the future if the member would agree. In favour of this area being devolved in a very appropriate way so that we can cover all aspects of it because we already cover some of them so I would welcome that. Can I ask if our Scottish courts have the power to order a permanent removal of licence after the second defence because again it seems to me that if there's been a second defence that we should have that power. What is the current sentencing guidelines for anyone caught driving after their licence has been suspended due to drink driving? Additionally, driving whilst impaired by both drugs and alcohol is a growing problem in the United Kingdom as a whole and I wonder what the Scottish Government's view is on this issue. Finally, I hope that the Government will support the part of my bill to ensure that GPs are notified of offences like drink driving, especially where it involves the custodial events. I was never informed in all my 30-plus years as a GP that such an offence had been committed. This and control over caffeinated alcohol mix which can lead to people believing that they are more competent than they are in reality, I think that it's important that we limit the caffeine levels in caffeine alcohol mixes and I hope that the Government will support the part of my bill that deals with this. We must use the powers that we already have, though I do personally as I have indicated to support more powers for us to differentiate levels such as those indicated by David Stewart in relation to novice drivers. In conclusion, I am very disappointed that the UK coalition has backed off on this matter. Its record is poor on this as it is on nutrition to tackle obesity. The Scottish Government will have our Government on backing all reasonable measures to improve public health, and I support the motion and welcome the cabinet secretary's support for Labour's amendment. Thank you so much. I now call on Sandra White to be followed by Alison McInnes. Four minutes are thereby, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also commend Dave Thompson for his tenacity and the work that he has carried out in the years to bring this to fruition. Thank you very much, Dave, in that respect. Presiding Officer, as I have mentioned before, the majority of people in Scotland support a lower drink limit, as it is evident in the consultation that was carried out by the Scottish Government. An independent analysis of those who responded to the consultation found that 74 per cent believed that drink drive limits should be reduced, and 87 per cent of those agreed that the blood alcohol limit should be reduced to 50 ml, stroke 100 mg, or 100 ml. The British Medical Association of Scotland and the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents all support a reduction in the drink drive limit. We have to ask why, because it will save lives if they have said and others also. Very importantly, discourage drivers not to drink and drive, and that is where the educational aspect will come in also. I know that figures have been bandied about. I would like to put a few of my own. An average of 20 lives a year are lost through drink driving. Last year, 90 people were seriously injured, and 340 were slightly injured as a result of drink driving. That is totally unacceptable, and it really does affect all that involved. I would like to mention the comments from Paul Bassett, general manager of South East division Scottish ambulance service. He says, all too often, our ambulance crews have to deal with the tragic consequences of drink driving, which have a devastating impact on families and communities, and the ambulance drivers and the rescue workers also. The message is clear, he says, and we hope that this initiative will reduce the number of lives that are ruined as a result of drink driving. No one should be drinking and driving, and drivers should be taking full responsibility for their actions. Kathleen Bradwell from the road safety officer at Rosba also mentioned the fact that people need to realise that any amount of alcohol impairs a driver's ability to judge speed and distance well behind the wheel. Alcohol also slows reaction times and can make drivers overconfident, as has already been mentioned, and more likely to take risks. Lowering the drink driving limit will not only contribute to making our roads safer, but it will also have a wider social impact. That is very important, as I said at the beginning. It affects all aspects of lives as well. There have been issues raised by Graeme Pearson, who mentioned the fact about education, media and that type of thing. The measures that the camp sec has brought out to the general public to make them aware have covered most of the measures that we are looking at, and they have been very well outlined. When you look at the TV radio electronic sides, both here and on the borders, at petrol stations, pubs, retail organisations, it has been looked at very carefully. I doubt that anyone would be aware of the changes that are going to take place, and it is incumbent on drivers and others to ensure that they know what their law is. Basically, I do not want to raise the issue that Margaret Mitchell raised earlier on. I did not quite understand Margaret where you were coming from, as I do not think that a number of us did. Perhaps in summing up, we could have more of an explanation in regard to that. The Scottish Government did ask for more powers for penalties and changes in that in 2012, as Dave Thompson had mentioned when we had the powers brought forward about reducing the drink driving license. The Westminster Government was asked but did not come forward with it. We would all agree, as Richard Simpson said, that those powers would be welcome to have it here in the Scottish Parliament to work in tandem with some of the other ideas. Drink driving blights lives for everyone, and we have to do our utmost to ensure that, as Graham Pearson said, perhaps people are not to criminalise them but to educate them to the fact that drink driving will not be acceptable from now on in Scotland. The current drink drive limit was set in 1965. Since then, I am glad to say that perceptions have changed. The public and scientific understanding of the risks has increased dramatically. However, for many folk, there is still some confusion as to what the existing limit allows—a pint, a glass of wine, what constitutes a unit, and how many can you have and still legally drive. In future, the message could not be clearer. If you have had even one drink, you should not drive. The evidence for that is irrefutable.  It can instill false confidence, impaired co-ordination and weaken the judgment of factors, including distance and speed. As we have heard, the number of drink driving accidents and casualties has halved in recent years. However, the latest Transport Scotland data shows that there were still 440 drink drive accidents in 2012, causing 580 people to be injured and among those, 10 fatalities. A 2010 study by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence found drivers intoxicated to the existing limit of 80mg were 11 times more likely to be involved in a fatal car crash than drivers who had no alcohol in their blood. Reduced to 50mg, that falls to three times as likely. In short, drinking at all increases the chance of a collision. Why not adopt a zero-tolerance approach then? Ideally, no one with alcohol in their system would get behind a wheel, but we understand that that would appear to cause practical and technical difficulties. A study by University College London estimates that reducing the limit to 50mg would still prevent 65 deaths and 250 serious injuries each year if adopted across the UK. The evidence from Ireland is that it will encourage a culture change that will deliver year-on-year improvements, which in itself is a great step forward. I hope that the rest of the United Kingdom will follow Scotland's lead on that. I cannot support the Conservative amendment today. I am afraid that Margaret Mitchell did not set out a coherent case for her amendment. I believe that the mandatory penalty, losing your licence for 12 months, is still proportionate for the new level that we are bringing in. Of course judicial discretion allows for exceptional circumstances. We took evidence in the Justice Committee on this a couple of weeks ago, and Chief Superintendent Ian Murray was clear in his evidence to us that day. He said that lowering or varying the penalty based on the amount of alcohol consumed would reduce the deterrent effect. We should not take account of whether somebody was three times or six times more likely to kill themselves or somebody else. He was very firm in his view that we should have a single penalty for that. However, getting the message across to every single driver that there is no safe amount that you can drink before taking control of a vehicle will arguably require the most extensive driver education campaign ever, and I do have some concerns as to whether that can be achieved in just two and a half weeks. I am also sympathetic to the Labour's amendment and wonder whether the impact of alcohol in next-day drivers needs to be more prominent in the publicity material. How many people know that it can take roughly 13 hours to be alcohol-free after drinking four pints of strong lager or ale? As Dr Rice alluded to in his evidence to the committee, it is still a common misconception that coffee, sleep or a shower, exercise or a full Scottish breakfast will speed up the removal of alcohol from your system. Of course, it does not. I support that approach. I do not drink and drive, but it must be accompanied by sufficient education so that we can reach that zero-tolerance approach. We were able to modify the drink-drive limit using the significant powers that devolved through the Scotland Act 2012. Steered by Liberal Democrats, Secretary of State for Scotland, Mike Moor, it is a testament to our commitment to strengthening the powers of this Parliament. Scottish Liberal Democrats will always support evidence-based efforts to make our roads safer and save lives, and therefore we will back the motion today. Many thanks. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Drink-driving has been a scourge on Scotland's road for too long, leading to completely unnecessary injuries and deaths, devastating families and communities across the country. It is absolutely right that the Scottish Government is taking this decisive action. Around one in ten deaths on Scotland's road involve drivers who are over the limit, and I've been even wondering, as Alison MacKinnon said, it's enough to make you free times as likely to be involved in a fatal car crash. That's why lowering the blood alcohol limit is the right thing to do, making our roads safer, saving lives and preventing more families from having to deal with losing a loved one through drink-driving. This new limit will send out a clear message by driving after you have had the one drink it's unacceptable. And I hope, Presiding Officer, that the rest of the UK, like all the members said, will follow Scotland's example on this important issue and comes into line with the rest of Europe. I agree with Margaret Decker of Scotland's campaign against irresponsible drivers. When she stated, to my mind, it's only a start to eradicating the scourge of drink-driving in Scotland. Our European neighbours have already introduced the same or even lower limit, like a lot of Polish people who live there in Scotland. They know that their limit is a lot lower in Poland. It's 20mg. Only Malta and the rest of the UK limit will still be at 80mg after this parliament passed this bill. For example, the Republic of Ireland lowered its drink-drive limit to 50mg in 2011, with a further limit of 20mg introduced for specified drivers, such as those who have recently passed their test. France was a different social attitude with drink-driving as a 50mg limit, but with a long tradition of random breath testing. We integrated the panel when we came in for the committee about breath testing, and the committee was told by Dr Rice of the Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems that 15% of French drivers are tested every year while the numbers who are tested in the UK are in single figures. So there is a case for random breath testing, and that case was made at committee. Unfortunately, it's another of one of the policies which still reserved. I remember the numerous road safety campaign in the French media warning that police would conduct random breath testing on local roads, and that worked very well. I am sympathetic to Margaret Mitchell's amendment as it reads, not how she explained it in a speech, because considering that the application and penalties imposed should be proportionate, I can agree with that, but not now, because as we heard at committee, 50mg is really what is proportionate, and it's the limit we have just now, is the penalties we have just now. I think if we are thinking about lowering the limit at one point, I'll agree with her, I think we will need to have as powers devoured, and that will be of benefit to us. Margaret Decker of Scotland campaign against service for drivers said, we would like to see a zero limit, and a lot of people do ask for a zero limit. I'm not particularly agreeing on the zero limit, but a lower limit of the countries of it, like I said, Poland, have got a lower limit, so if we could have all this powers devoured, we might consider it. We know that the Scottish Taxi Federation supports a zero tolerance as well, because too many people have been victim of drink drivers. The road orange association supports more stringent drink driving regulations, so presiding officer, I do think that there is a case today for having obvious limits to be devolved. Lowering the blood alcohol limit is the right thing to do, and I'm looking forward to continuing on the road of eradicating the scourge of drink driving in Scotland. Thank you very much. I now call on David Stewart to be followed by Christine Grahame. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a veteran road safety campaigner, I very much welcome this debate this afternoon, and of course I'll be supporting the Scottish Government's motion at five o'clock. I will focus, Mary March, on young driver safety. It's very appropriate, of course, that we're having this debate in road safety week. I'll begin, perhaps, if I could, by reading part of a blog that was posted on a well-known site from the best friend of a drink driver. It states, and I quote, We all enjoy our nights out, but my mate takes it far too far. He's never aggressive on that when he's drunk, but last Friday night was the tipping point for many of us that go out. We found that after 18 pints of calfreeds, 10 JDs and coax and various shots of liqueurs, that he actually drove the three miles home. All that started at 5pm and ended at 4am. This has got to stop. If he'll hit anyone or anything, then he would never have known about it. The blog went on.  I think that I've learned a lot about the tragedies that are involved in drink driving and spent a lot of time thinking about the solutions to that crucial aspect of driver safety. The trigger for me was the tragic death of two 17-year-olds in Inverness in March 2010, which was directly linked to drink driving. It's a truism that's not depleted by repetition, that there's no greater tragedy, no greater sorrow and no greater loss than for a parent to lose a child. The Highland tragedy got me to set up a local group called Nostat, the North of Scotland driver awareness team, that led to local campaigns in the Highlands and Islands called sensible driving, always arriving. Although drink driving appears to be a single issue, as many members have recognised, it's in fact a diverse problem that includes various dimensions such as alcohol abuse, underage drinking and other social concerns, as identified in the North Street view and the Nice report of 2010. Therefore, the solutions need to be equal, intricate and wide-ranging, and that demands a comprehensive, creative and flexible approach. It's important that you drink driving the broader con— Dave Thomson? I thank the member for taking an intervention and just wondering, in order to get the full range of issues dealt with, does he agree with me that we need to have all the powers relating to this matter devolved to this Parliament? David Stewart? I certainly welcome the work that the member has done in the case of drink driving and acknowledge the work that he has done. In this area, as Dr Simpson has mentioned, there are strong arguments for having day-to-day administration over this particular area, so I support the general thrust of the member's comments. It's important that you drink driving in the broader context of public health implications of alcohol abuse. As a result, the solutions must take into account drinking patterns and groups that are particularly at risk. As is in the Highlands and Islands Road Safety Campaigner, I welcome many measures that will improve road safety and reduce fatalities and see its injuries as a result. It's a tragedy that every year one in 10 deaths on Scottish roads involve a driver who is over the drink driving limit, so every year, on average, there are 30 deaths on Scottish roads that are caused by drivers who are over the legal limit. In 2010, as has already been mentioned, there were 750 casualties and 20 deaths directly as a result of drink driving. In 2011, there were 680 casualties and 20 deaths directly as a result of alcohol. Of course, I welcome the suggestion to lower the permitted blood alcohol level in Scotland. A power, as other members have mentioned, was enabled by the Scotland Act 2012. Of course, I look forward to the UK Government following our lead for the rest of the UK as soon as possible. I welcome the speed introduction of the legislation. Again, as other members have said, we need a clear and ambiguous message. If you are driving, don't drink. Don't do the lottery with your career and don't force other road users to do the same such as a pedestrian or cyclist. If you do, you will face the consequences. In conclusion, international best practice suggests that the countries that have the lowest drink driving figures have three things in common. A long track record of drink driving enforcement, a high level of detection and, finally, a mass media support for enforcement. For young drivers in particular, graduated licence schemes with restrictions on passengers, night driving and zero tolerance of alcohol, along with increased education, will reduce the carnage on our roads and cause a reduction in deaths and injuries, particularly among young people throughout Scotland. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will address both amendments. The first one, Graham Pearsons, 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, mostly concerned about people being unsure whether or not they would be caught the next day and, quite innocently, perhaps having been at a wedding and so on. I do not understand Margaret Mitchell's—I am going to just read it as it would amend the motions that she can clarify in her summing up—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. I do not understand it. Does it mean that some people who are stopped, who are over that 50, it should be applied to them? Or does it also mean that, if it is applied to them, they should not have mandatory banning for the year? Well, we cannot do that. There is mandatory banning. The 50 is just being substituted for the 80. No, I will look at four minutes, I hope. I want to support your amendment. You will need to clarify for goodness' sake what it actually means. I have to say that, of course, the committee wholly supported the reduction to 50 milligrams and 100 milliliters. As I said before, we are concerned not about people in the pub having a drink where they shouldn't and then take their car, but what happens the morning after. As my colleague has stolen my line about the Scottish breakfast, I returned to my own, which was the iron brew, and the bacon roll won't do. Just taking a shower and a cold walk with the dog and so on, you will still be over the limit. The evidence we had in the medicals was, in fact, that your liver is like going through the supermarket checkout. You can only go through one at a time, so each drink has to go through the liver at a certain rate. It doesn't go through faster than any way. I hope that you can follow the metaphor that I did at the time. Most importantly, however, to me is information. Information is not just over Christmas because we move into the summer in the spring and people are out in the sunshine having wine and so on. It is to have, in particular, cross-border, which in my particular area of the Scottish border is very important. I know that you are going to have electronic signs and gantries and motorways and so on. I also suggest that motorway services that you also have—the cabinet secretary nodding—was ahead of me with that. I am glad that it is an ITV border. We plug from there, but we do not get STV in the Scottish border, so it was very important that they were encapsulated in this. However, I am going to be a little bit controversial, not like my usual style. I am not—I know that this is not devolved, but I am slightly concerned about random testing. Why I am concerned about it is not that I in any way support people drinking and driving, but random testing strays for me into the area of civil liberties. We have been there with stop-and-search and the police said that what most of the stop-and-search has done is consensual.  I do not know—the public says that they do not mind random testing, but I do not know if every motorist pulled over for no reason whatsoever who then has the window down and the policeman leans in just to see if he can sniff, or if she can sniff any out and about. We will be that happy. I think that there is a balance between taking the public with you and just saying that we can stop you in any event. What was not clear to me—we all know the thing about when your brake light is not functioning when you are asked to stop and the window goes down and you will find what it is all about—from the police saying that evidence is that they can stop us anyway. They can stop us without any cause for concern either way that you are driving or any condition of your vehicle. I did not know that that was the case. I would like that clarified. I will just leave that with you. Random testing—yes, everybody says that in favour of it—if you were to start to do it on a large scale if we had the power, you might find some of the public just getting a little bit. I know that you do not agree with Mr Lallard. I told you to be controversial, but I think that it is worth considering. Many thanks. I now call Hans Alam Alec to be followed by Richard Lyle. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Presiding Officer. Speaking on reducing the drink drive limit today is important and I fully agree with the motion and the Labour Party's amendment. The UK currently has the highest drink drive alcohol limit in the European Union at 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. This is clearly evidence that the reduction to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres will reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by drink driving. Estimates of how many lives can be saved with a lower limit vary, but there is evidence that indicates between three to seven lives could be saved on Scottish roads per annum. The risk of getting into a crash significantly rises once the blood levels reach above 50 millilitres and every 100 sorry milligrams in 100 millilitres of blood. Although this strange evidence has base reducing the drink levels limit on the 5th of December, there is widespread support for extending external organisations such as the British Medical Association and the Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents and these are professionals who deal on a day-to-day basis with ailments in our health service as well as dealing with accidents. The government needs to ensure that proposals are fully resourced so that Police Scotland has the support they need to implement the policy including resources of educating drivers about the changes in the law and also in terms of making sure the message gets through the file the cabinet secretary has indicated very clearly in the areas that he would be pursuing this but I also want the cabinet secretary to be aware that there are a lot of other communities particularly youngsters who could benefit from such education and advice. I personally am in the favour of reducing the drink drive limit to a much lower level. I appreciate that a zero level may cause problems as certain foods, medication and perhaps even some mouthwashers can have an impact on breathing tests but I feel that in the future reducing the limit to a normal level such as 0.5 percent is five milligrams per 100 millilitres would get rid of a lot of confusion about how much one can drink and get behind a vehicle. The important fact is loss of life, loss of limb, disruption to family life is far too high a price for us to pay for not to secure this sort of levels it is pure madness to allow to continue people and our society to continue to put not only themselves at risk but many others. I have seen first hand as a councillor the hardship that families have to go through when someone is either convicted of drink driving because of loss of employment and other amenities but also victims who have been injured to no fault of their own and the families have had to pick up the pieces. I think sometimes we underestimate the value that we lose when someone is either injured or has lost their life because of this and I'm also very keen for the Cabinet Secretary to look at one other issue and that is all those people who use machinery, who are drivers, pilots, automobile drivers, train drivers, we need to look at that as well and not just simply car drivers. I hope that you will take this message on board and I look forward to your proposal in the future. Thank you very much. Many thanks. I now call Richard Lyle to be followed by Margaret McCulloch. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As already stated, there has been a drink driving limit in place since 1965 and since then social attitudes towards those who drink drive have changed dramatically since the 60s, with most people taking a hard line stance on the issues surrounding drink driving. I go as far as saying that people of Scotland in relation to drink driving have developed a strong social conscience towards the issue of drink driving and I am clear that drink driving can have devastating effects. Despite that, I am disappointed to note that an estimated 20 lives still continue to be lost on Scotland's roads as a result of drink driving, not to mention all the other serious injuries sustained by members of the public. That is why I am pleased that the Scottish Government has decided to lower the drink driving limit. I am also encouraged by the results of the Scottish Government's consultation that showed that the vast majority of people who responded would support a lower drink driving limit in Scotland. In fact, just short of 75 per cent of respondents said that they would support a lower drink driving limit, which I believe reinforces the idea of our nation's conscience on this issue. New drink driving limit in place from 5 December will make Scotland's roads safer, as it allows the police, prosecutors and our courts to take more drivers off the road who pose a risk to public safety and will act as a deterrent in encouraging people not to drink and drive at all. Particularly as the new limit is coming into force and the lead up to the festive period, where many may have been tempted to have a drink and drive after an office party or from a family gathering. When I first started driving, I, like anyone else, would have a couple of pints. Then I found someone who was stopped one night and those couple of pints had put them over the limit. I then went down to one pint and then I said, why should I? I then said, no, I don't want to be caught, I don't want to drink and drive. I then, as I take friends out, I drink orange and I still enjoy my night. With that in mind, the Scottish Government is doing all that it can to ensure that the public is properly informed about the change in the drink driving limit. The campaign was launched, I note, on the 17th of this month and includes a TV and radio advert across Scotland and as well a robust social media campaign. With the new drink driving limit in place, it brings Scotland into line with most other European countries. As already has been stated, the Republic of Ireland is an example of good practice as to the benefits of the lower limit. A review of its policy, published in December 2012, found that the number of arrests for drink driving between October 2011 and October 2012 had fallen when compared with its 2010 statistics, which was the last calendar year in which the higher limit was enforced. Drivers in the Republic of Ireland have adjusted their behaviour to take into account with the lower limit. That evidence is encouraging and I would hope to see the same reduction in Scotland. To finish, I would encourage all members to support the lower drink driving limit, as it will make our roads safer and save lives. Even with the lower limit, you are still three times more likely to die in a crash if you had taken no alcohol. The best advice that we can give—and I am sure that many members have already said this—is to give us to have no alcohol if you plan on driving. I think that I have also been stated that remember what you drink the night before is still in your system the next morning. Many thanks. I now call Margarit McCulloch to be followed by Roderick Campbell. The drink drive limit will make Scotland's roads safer. We all know that alcohol affects a driver's judgment and reaction times, and we know that the risk of having a road accident increases as more alcohol is consumed. We also know that Scotland and the United Kingdom have one of the highest drink drive limits in Europe. In his report for the UK Government in 2010, Sir Peter North recommended the reduction in the drink drive limit from 80mg to 100mL to 50mg, bringing us into line with the vast majority of our European neighbours. It is the rejection of that recommendation by the current Government, coupled with the devolution of the power to set a specific limit for Scotland, which has led to this debate. I want to be clear at the outset that I support the reduction in the drink drive limit. I would discourage all forms of drink driving in the strongest possible terms, but I also believe that Labour's amendment enhances the Government's motion. In his report Sir Peter North, as the previous member stated, drivers with a blood alcohol concentration between 20mg to 100mg and a 50mg to 100mg have at least three times the greater risk of dying in a road traffic accident than drivers who have no alcohol in their blood at all. The risk of having a fatal accident increases by at least six times with a blood alcohol concentration between 50mg to 100mg and 80mg to 100mg and then 11 times between 80mg, 100mg to 100mg, 100mg to 100mg. In other words, alcohol increases the risk of a fatal accident exponentially and there is a significant increase in risk above a blood alcohol concentration of 50mg to 100mg. The report notes that there is a case for reducing the limit to 20mg to 100mg, which Sir Peter Argus would be consistent with a clear do not drink and drive policy. However, Sir Peter goes on to explain that only a minority of countries have such a limit and any policy viewed as too restrictive or inflexible could jeopardise the goodwill and public support the risk for strengthening drink drive legislation. The BMA has also reminded us that the lowest drink drive limits are the toughest to enforce. There are countries that have a drink drive limit of zero, yet there are circumstances in which people with medical conditions such as diabetes or people who use certain mouth washes would register alcohol in their blood. The recommendation that we reduce the limit on blood alcohol concentration to 50mg to 100mg has not only proven to be popular beyond the chamber with the public, the police and road safety campaigners, but it is a practical proposal. It is enforceable and will save lives. There is also a broad agreement that the common change must be communicated effectively to the public before coming into force on 5 December. 32 responses to the Scottish Government's consultation emphasised the need to educate drivers about the change to the drink drive limit, and 13 identified the need to educate people about the linger morning after effects of alcohol. It takes longer than people often think for alcohol to pass through their bodies. People who would never count on a drink drive might not realise how much alcohol remains in their system the morning after a night out. They could find that their reaction times are slow, and if they were stopped by police, they could find that they had broken the law. We need to do more than educate drivers know their limits and know their units. We need to change behaviour and prevent people from getting behind the wheel of a car in the morning when there could still be enough alcohol present in their system to take them over the limit. I would acknowledge a new public awareness campaign launched this week, but I would also appeal to the Government for Assurances that attempts to educate motorists will be robust, proactive and will continue beyond the festive season. With a new drink drive limit, I hope that we can prevent any of those accidents, injuries and deaths on Scotland's roads. We can make people think more about how much they drink before they drive, and we can send out a clear message that is safest not to drink at all before getting behind the wheel. With education and enforcement, we can make Scotland's roads safer, and I believe that we must thank you. Many thanks, and the final speaker in the open debate is Roderick Campbell. This is an important subject, no more so than at this time of year. As has been well discussed today, the consequences of drink driving can be traumatic, not only for the individuals involved in accidents but for those left behind. As the cabinet secretary has already indicated, social attitudes change, and just as a society we know that taking on board the dire effects of smoking led to a change in public attitudes towards that. With drink driving, I believe that overwhelmingly the public shared the views of those who participated in the Government's consultation. Drink driving not only causes trauma and costs lives, it also impacts on an already stretched health service. Along with others today, we welcome those proposals. We have heard a lot today about the morning after, and I agree with those who have spoken already that this should be a key theme of public education campaigns, particularly at this time of year. As Chief Superintendent Murray said in evidence to the Justice Committee, 10 per cent of detections in last winter's drink driving campaign were after six o'clock in the morning, and we also heard good evidence from Dr Rice. I particularly liked his straightforward comment that whatever magical properties people endow, iron brew, bacon rolls or square sausage with, that is all they are, and basically time is the only thing that clears alcohol from your system. We all need to apply common sense. If you're out until one in the morning at an office party, don't assume you'll be fit to drive or function by breakfast time, and as others have said, take public transport or better still walk. I welcome the general thrust of this legislation. I believe that Scotland does need to be in the mainstream of Europe. Only Malta and England and Wales seem likely to stick to 80, and I particularly note with interest that in Northern Ireland the new limit is 20 milligrams for learner and novice drivers. I'm frankly baffled as to why the UK Government can agree that kind of provision in Northern Ireland, but not allow the Scottish Government and Parliament to even consider that prospect. We did, of course, discuss that in evidence. Again, chief superintendent Murray took the view that at a certain time, perhaps after holding a licence for two years, then to increase the limit for younger drivers from 20 to 50, for example, would send out the wrong message, whereas Dr Rice suggested that the BMA would favour such an approach. I think that the evidence on this is finally balanced, although I think that the approach suggested by Margaret Decker of Scotland's campaign against irresponsible drivers to apply a lower limit for professional drivers such as taxi drivers, school and bus drivers, and anyone who drives in a care capacity to which Hamzala Malik has already referred, has much to commend it, even though I know that it was accepted by her and rejected by the North review. I do agree with the North review, however, as in seeking to review the impact of a new prescribed limit after five years in relation to young and novice drivers, and at that point to consider again a reduction to 20 for such drivers if the evidence suggested that the anticipated reduction in casualty figures for such drivers had not materialised. On random breath testing, of course, as the cabinet secretary indicated in evidence to the Justice Committee, Scotland does not have this power at the present time. Even if, as the cabinet secretary indicated, the police would like to have it. As has been made clear already today, whatever the merits of an approach to disqualification, which allows courts not to automatically disqualify courts convicted of driving at levels between 50 and 80, or for that matter between 20 and 50, this Parliament currently does not have those powers at all. At the risk of being accused of raising the constitutional issue again, I think that the distinction between limits and penalties is something that the public will find increasingly difficult to understand, increasingly difficult to accept that we should be in charge of one but not the other. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I welcome the dismeasure and would hope that the public education campaign will be a success and that we can look forward to reduction in road casualties this Christmas. That will be a Christmas worth having. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many thanks. We now turn to the closing speeches and I call on Alex Johnston. Maximum five minutes, please. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Anyone who is familiar with the words of Robert Burns, particularly Thomas Shanter, will know about the difficulties in managing your transport after you have had a skin fool. However, the issue of taking a horse home is one that historically has happened much more recently in Scotland, where it was quite often the tradition that a farmer would go off to the mart, drink heavily after the end of the day's work and then somebody would tip him into his gig and his pony would take him home because the pony knew the way. The tradition seems to dictate that these kind of things had happened but perhaps it was the driverless car before such a thing had actually been invented. Attitudes have changed and motor vehicles have made it a much more important thing for us to address. Of course, drinking and driving to excess has been illegal since 1967. I think that the message that we all need to be prepared to get out now is that it is not acceptable to drink any amount of alcohol before driving. The reason why we need a defined limit is so that we can then identify easily those who have crossed it and prosecute them effectively. However, there have been a number of issues thrown up during this discussion and concerns over the effect of those who have drunk the night before and who might be surprised to discover that they are still under the influence the following day is something that will require significant levels of education and urgently if the limit is to be introduced for the 5 December. That is why we on this side of the chamber will happily support that and the other reasons behind the Labour Party's amendment. Turning to the Conservative Party amendment, we are very pleased at the reaction that we got from Kenny MacAskill at the start of the debate. The objective of the Conservative Party amendment is to introduce the idea that at some point in the future it may be possible, perhaps even necessary, to consider variable application of penalties. If we look at the situation that we find ourselves in with that legislation, simply taking the penalties that are currently applied to 80 and applying them to 50 is all well and good. However, there is an argument that says that we should consider for the future whether those who are over 80 or over some other level should be penalised to a greater level. Similarly, we have spoken today about the possibility of new powers allowing us to consider lower limits or different limits for different people at a lower end of the scale. I think that it would be reasonable then also to have a good understanding in advance about the possibilities of variable penalties at that end of the scale also. However, what we need to do urgently is to understand what it is that we are trying to achieve. We must enforce the drink driving limit effectively and it is possible to enforce that 50mg limit. However, we must educate people to understand that they should not be drinking and driving. However, at the end of the day, we have a number of comments that have been made here that tell us what the real problem is. The minister himself spoke about a persistent minority who continue to drink and drive. We heard David Stewart talking about an individual who, I think, in a blog claimed to have driven after drinking 18 pints while the reduction of the limit from 80 to 50 will not affect individuals of that kind.  We have the opportunity to encourage people to take a much more responsible attitude. We need to ensure that when it comes to enforcement we have a proper attitude towards enforcement and that the resources are made available to ensure that we have fair and effective enforcement. If we look at the experience that we have had in the past, the minister's statement that we want fewer drink drivers, not more convictions, is one that I would like to give my backing to also. However, it does contradict the experience that perhaps sometimes in the past when the practice is involved in policing speed on our roads, for example, has led to an emphasis on catching those who are easiest to catch, most likely to admit their guilt and accept their penalties, while some others have tended to be treated less severely in terms of enforcement. It is very important that we understand that going forward with this change will save lives but it will raise questions. We must enforce effectively, we must educate effectively and we must ensure that resources are properly targeted to make the maximum effect of this change in the law. We will support the amendments and the motion at 5 o'clock. Thank you very much, and I will now call in Elaine Murray in seven minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I start by commending both David Thompson and David Stewart for the amount of work that they have done on road safety over the years. Prior to the road safety act of 1967, it was a crime to be in charge of a car while an unfit to drive through drink or drugs, but there was no reliable test for measuring when a driver was in foot. In fact, it had been an offence to be drunk in charge of carriages, horses, cattle and steam engines since 1872. I am old enough to remember that I did not drive at the time when the transport minister in Harold Wilson's Government, Barbara Castle, introduced the breathalyzer to his considerable public outcry at the time. In fact, I can remember a Christmas episode of Steptoe and Sun where Harold was breathalyzed while drunk in charge of her key leads and then poured a probium on to the transport minister for having introduced this breathalyzer. I certainly hope that there is no such public reaction to Mr MacAskill or indeed to the Parliament for us passing this legislation. The combination of the introduction of the first approved breathalyzer and the Government run advertising campaign reduced the number of road traffic accidents where alcohol was involved in the United Kingdom from 25 per cent to 15 per cent of the first year of that coming in, and a reduction in deaths of 1,152, which shows how bad it was at that time, but indeed how legislation could make a good effect. The latest statistics indicate in 2011 that 230 people died in alcohol related accidents, but that is 230 people across the United Kingdom, 230 people, too many. As the cabinet secretary says, public attitudes to drink driving have changed. Driving after having drunk alcohol was, prior to the 1967 act, a fairly normal practice. Indeed, the limits in the act appear to condone driving after moderate drinking. It still is, for the time being, possible to go to the pub for an evening and drink a couple of pints, in which you would allow that to be referred to and still not be over the legal limit, but that must no longer be the message that we put out. Fifty years on from the first adverts proclaiming the hazards of drink driving, it is timely that the limit is reconsidered. The UK may have well been ahead of other countries in 1967, but, as others have said, we are now behind the limit. In the majority of European countries, it is now 50 milligrams per 100 millimetres, and indeed in some it is 20. We agree that it is time for Scotland caught up. It was the UK transport minister Lord Adonis, who commissioned Sir Peter North's review, which Richard Simpson and Margaret McCulloch referred to, to consider the case for changing the drink driving limit in the United Kingdom. He concluded that it should be 50 milligrams. His evidence suggests that, as others have said, an accident involving a driver with 80 milligrams alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood was six times more likely to result in death than a driver who had no alcohol. It is curious that the UK Government refused to act on Lord North's recommendations, but I am pleased that the devolution of power to alter the drinking driving limit in the Scotland Act 2012 has given this Parliament once again the power to take the lead in the United Kingdom, as we did on the ban on smoking in public places, and bring that limit down to 50. Instead of the current situation where driving after consuming a small amount of alcohol is permissible, the message now has to be, do not drink at all if you intend to drive. Many drivers already take that approach. I have spoken to my own three children who are all adults and drive, and I would not even dream of having a drink before they were driving. We want to encourage that to be normal. Educating drivers about the changes, of course, is vital and needs, as our motion says, to make drivers aware of next-day effects. That is an opportunity to remind drivers that they must all remember that alcohol could still be in their system the day after drinking. As others have said, people have various remedies for having drinking, including drinking fizzy drinks, made from our own gardens, but none of those things actually work, as various people have said. It is particularly important at this time of year when festive nights out might involve heavier drinking than normal or late night or early morning drinking, workmates going to the pub and then on to meals or nightclubs. Drivers need to think about what they have consumed and when before they take the car out the following day. As you can see, I am a fairly small female. I weigh about 50kg. I did an experiment with my partner, who is a lot bigger than me. We bought a breathalyzer and we did that in the safety of our own home. I monitored how quickly your blood alcohol concentration has gone up and come back down again. Somebody in my size has gone up faster and has also stopped drinking sooner, slowed down sooner because it is going up faster, but you process it at the same level and it gets out of your system faster. There is a lesson out there for larger people that you may be able to drink more, but it will stay in your system to be careful the next day that you may not feel fine, but you may not be capable of driving. We feel that lesson needs to get out to people that however good you feel, you may not have a hangover, you may feel fine, but you may not be capable of driving. People need to think, particularly at this time of year, that people need to think about that. I have difficulty and I cannot support the Conservative motion because I think that its interpretation is difficult. By referring to penalties and applications being proportionate, it sounds as if you are saying that the way in which people are at the Sheriff's Act, the way in which the Police Scotland Act, should be proportionate to the amount that you have had to drink. It could suggest that a more lenient attitude should be taken by Police Scotland and by sheriffs for people who are between the 50 and 80mg limit. I think that that muddies the water. If the Government chooses to support that amendment, we certainly will not vote against the amended motion, but I think that it puts a mixed message out there that somehow there is some proportionate response, which leads on from the fact that we brought the drink driving limit down. I think that we have to be clear that we must not dilute the message that this legislation is intended to convey that it is not safe to drink and drive. If you are driving, do not drink anything at all. If you have been drinking the night before, particularly at this time of year when people are drinking more and drinking later, think about what you have had to drink. Think about whether you can still be over the limit the next day. If there is any chance that you can be over the limit the next day, do not go out and drive. There are machines that you can buy, as I have said, which test your alcohol if you think that there is any chance that you could be over the limit. You should be actually testing yourself or you could be anything over a low, in fact. You should be testing yourself and not driving if there is any alcohol in your system whatsoever. If we are actually to improve the road safety record of this country further, we actually need to take that very seriously and we need to get that lesson out to the public. The days of drinking or driving or driving with alcohol in your system are no more. Many thanks. I now call on Kenny MacAskill to wind up the debate. Cabinet Secretary, you have until 5 p.m. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that this has been a remarkably consensual debate in the main. We would expect no less when we are talking about people's lives that have been lost and lives that we seek to save. For that reason, and notwithstanding the point made by Elaine Murray, I think that we accept the spirit of the amendment being made by the Tories. That is the clear assurance that has been given by us as a Government that, while we seek the devolution of more powers, we are prepared to consider points that I will mention, raised by Hamzala Marek, Richard Simpson and many others around the table. We see no basis in which we could ever vary from a mandatory period of disqualification of one year and, indeed, greater for subsequent offences and, indeed, depending on the particular circumstances, even for a first offence when we are reduced from 80 to 50. However, I think that we accept the spirit of what was put forward as amendment by the Labour Party and we fully agree that there has to be an information campaign and I hope to be able to give the assurance that that can be done and equally that perhaps we do have to have further focus and we would welcome that. It is a position that I think that almost every speaker has mentioned, by all means. I am still somewhat confused because I know what the cabinet secretary has just said and what he said in his opening speech about the Conservative amendment, but neither speaker from the Conservative party could properly explain their amendment. I mean, I have read the amendment again just to make sure that I am not making a mistake, but it does seem to talk about penalties imposed should be proportionate and neither speaker could actually say clearly what that meant and I am still very concerned about the implications of the Conservative amendment. Cabinet Secretary? Well, I have to say that I am satisfied that our judiciary do impose proportionate sentences. If, on any occasion, it is felt that it is disproportionate, then we have an appillate court and, ultimately, we also have the Scottish criminal case review commission that very rarely would be invoked, I think, for a drink-driving offence. However, as I say, I am happy to accept the spirit, even if perhaps sometimes some of the comments made by the Conservatives regarding the attitudes and actions of the police I felt were rather begrudging. Can I say first of all that clearly it is, I think, about saving lives? Significant progress has been made and Scotland is a safer place on our roads for a variety of factors that have been brought in from Governments north and south. Attitudes have changed, but it is important to remember that it is not just simply saving those lives that are lost on the road from those who are driving and cause the death of themselves or, indeed, their passenger or, indeed, other road users who are minding their own business.  He was a pedestrian, he was not on the road, he was walking home after a night out having minded his own business, and a driver under the impairment of alcohol lost control and cost him his life, made her a widow and caused those children to lose their father. That is about saving the lives, not just of those on the road but pedestrians who also frequently suffer. Attitudes, and it was mentioned by Graham Pearson quite correctly, and Richard Lyle, I recall. Attitudes have changed, understandably and appropriately. I think that I can look back at friends and perhaps even my own attitude that has correctly firmed up and changed over the years, but it is not just attitudes that have changed. Roads have changed significantly since 1967. Traffic is significantly heavier. The consequence for a moment's in-action and attention can be much, much greater now than perhaps all those years ago. The power and capacity of vehicles is significantly greater. Having changed my vehicle and still having a vehicle with a 1,200 cc capacity, the power, the speed and the acceleration in this car that I have in 2014 is significantly faster and greater than an engine of a much greater capacity all those years ago. The world has changed and we need to change with it. I can give Margaret Mitchell assurance that the police will provide the same resources. I do not believe and I do not know of any officer who goes round seeking, as I say, to get up targets or lists. I know officers who are being traumatised themselves and who take, and I do not know a police officer who does not take drink driving most seriously because they see the consequences. They have to report the bad news to the families. They are aware more than anybody of the action that has to be taken, but I do accept that we actually have to and should go further. Ireland lowered its limit, and that is the point that many have made on all sides of the chamber. However, when Ireland lowered its limit, not simply from 80mg to 50mg, it also had a further limit of 20mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood for specified drivers, and that is the point that even Dave Stewart was making. Learner drivers, those who have recently passed their test and those who are driving in a professional capacity, e.g. bus or truck drivers, wheeling on a Scotland, where a train driver, a ferry operator and indeed a plane pilot operates under a 35-limit. They are not, as I say, regulated by this Government, the reserve to Westminster. The only power that we have is the power to lower the drink driving limit, and that is what we have done. Had we and will we get other powers, we will look to replicate what has happened in Ireland. Let us look at Ireland. The road safety authority in the Republic of Ireland undertook a review of the lower drink driving limits the following year, which found that, notwithstanding the lower drink driving limits that were introduced in October 2011, the total number of arrests for drink driving fell slightly. I think that, because of the point that was made correctly by Elaine Murray, the campaign hammered home the message that people should not risk it. However, the chief executive of the road safety authority, Noel Brett, commented that, since 2007, the number of drivers being detected driving under the influence of alcohol has more than half. Clearly, the introduction of random breath testing in July 2006 and the lowering of the drink driving limits in October of 2011 have been the principal factors behind this drop. We do not have the ability to have graduated, or indeed the 20 to 50 limit that they have, and we do not have random breath testing. I think that the difference in the point that I would make to Christine Grahame is that the police cannot stop any car, but they cannot randomly breath test unless they have a suspicion of alcohol being consumed, which is why the window is there. It may be a moot or a tautological point, but I do think that random breath testing has a place that has certainly worked in the Republic of Ireland, and it is something that this Parliament should have the powers, whether it wishes to consider, but it should have the powers to bring it in if it should wish to invoke it. The experience of the Republic of Ireland is that people got the message that they should not drink and drive, that they could not, as was mentioned by Richard Ryle, maybe too, but then we also get others who will go out to a Christmas party or whatever and will think that well, if they stay for the meal they can have a glass of wine, if they stay for the dance then maybe they can have another pint or whatever it is and lo and behold they get in the car. There is an appropriate point about what the situation is in the morning after, but I think that that is something over recent years that the police have been driving home because there was a time, I think, when nobody gave any consideration to what the situation would be in the following morning. Now, I think, over recent years, we have been driving home that message. If you are out, whether it is a Christmas party or any other time of the year, then the situation should be that you make alternative arrangements the following day. So, I think, Presiding Officer, I can give members the assurance that we do have an appropriate advertising campaign that will run on beyond the Christmas hug money period. We are going to make sure that those who are contemplating driving the following day take on board the responsibility that they have to be aware of their responsibilities behind the wheel of a vehicle. On that basis, I simply end as I start by paying tribute to Dave Thompson. Some people in this Parliament have the privilege of bringing in a member's bill because this was reserved. We have not been able to do it because it has been dealt with by subordinate legislation, but this is a political equivalent of a private member's bill brought in by Dave Thompson, who has campaigned ceaselessly since he came into this Parliament to lower the drink driving limit. He has made Scotland a safer place. Thank you, cabinet secretary. That concludes the debate on lowering the drink drive limit. We now move to next item business, which is consideration of a parliamentary bureau motion. I would ask Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion number 11549 on approval of the Road Traffic Act 1988, prescribed limit, Scotland regulations 2014 draft. Thank you. The question this most would put decision time to which we now come. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment number 11567.1 in the name of Graham Pearson, which seeks to amend motion number 11567 in the name of Kenny MacAskill on lowering the drink drive limit be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is amendment number 11567.2 in the name of Margaret Mitchell, which seeks to amend motion number 11567 in the name of Kenny MacAskill on lowering the drink drive limit be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 11567.2 in the name of Margaret Mitchell is as follows. Yes, 70. No, 37. There were two abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is motion number 11567 in the name of Kenny MacAskill as amended on lowering the drink drive limit be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 11549. In the name of Dilford-Spark-Trick, on approval for an SSI, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.