Click here to return to the Johnstone's View Index

Johnstone's View 21st December 2007

Christmas is one of the few times of the year when people have more on their mind than contacting their MSP so, for a few days between Christmas and New Year, peace descends on the home of a politician.  The problem is however, that the last week or two leading up to the year end can be particularly hectic in the Scottish Parliament. 

In the face of a government which seems very much more willing than its predecessor to abandon procedure and do whatever it thinks fit, there has been no shortage of controversy in recent days but last week yet another problem came to light.  The decision to replace Peterhead Prison has evolved into a scheme to replace Aberdeen Prison too, leading to the likelihood that the latter will close with its responsibilities being transferred to Peterhead. 

Trouble is, I don’t remember that ever being discussed, let alone agreeing to it.   Aberdeen Prison has to hold prisoners on remand and those convicted and serving short sentences who come from its immediate community.  Many of these prisoners require access to drug and alcohol rehabilitation services and assistance in maintaining close links with their families.  It is therefore part of the community.

It is a prerequisite of a community prison that it should be situated within that community.  Aberdeen Prison must not be allowed to become a casualty of political decision-making designed to serve the economic development needs of Peterhead. 

My chamber responsibilities in this last week of term have included the final stage of the Toll Bridges (Scotland) Bill, which finally abolishes tolls on the Tay and Forth road bridges.  Slightly less prominent but I believe, much more significant in the longer term, I spoke in the debate supporting the Legislative Consent Motion on the UK Climate Change Bill.  This motion grants permission to the UK parliament to legislate in areas of devolved responsibility in so far as they affect United Kingdom priorities.  It also has the converse effect of permitting the Scottish Parliament to legislate, in a future Scottish Climate Change Bill, to permit Scotland to play to its strengths and if necessary, take on a disproportionate level of responsibility in cutting the UK’s climate change gas emissions while setting a framework to ensure that Scotland is not economically penalised for this higher level of ambition.  This story will run and run.   

As I commit these words to paper I am already aware that the Grampian Police festive drink driving campaign has resulted in 18 people so far being charged with the offence of driving with over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.  This is 18 too many and there is absolutely no excuse for this kind of behaviour.

There is a campaign at the moment to have this legal limit reduced from 80 to 50 milligrams and before any of us decide whether to support this campaign or not, we should be aware of exactly what it is we are talking about.

Firstly there is only one amount of alcohol that is appropriate for you or I to take before we get behind the wheel of a car and that is absolutely nil.  The idea that the legal limit should allow an individual to have “one for the road” is a complete misunderstanding of the reasoning behind the rules.  Any amount of alcohol in the blood stream will affect the perception, the reaction time and the judgement of a driver, even when it is well below the so-called “legal limit”.  

So why do we have a legal limit and why should we be considering changing it?  Well thankfully, for the moment at least, anyone charged with an offence in this country is considered innocent until they are proven guilty.  In order to prove this guilt, a line has to be drawn and a case has to be made that an individual has stepped over it.  The line must therefore be drawn at a level where the available technology can be used to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that it has been exceeded.  That is why, many years ago, the 80-milligram level was defined, not to let us drive home after we have had a couple of drinks.

I believe that technology is now available which would allow us to enforce a much lower limit of 50 milligram’s or perhaps even less.  I therefore support the campaign for a reduction in the limit but this must be accompanied by a redoubling of efforts to educate the handful of people who still think it is acceptable to drink and drive because it is not.  And remember, after a heavy night out your blood alcohol level can remain high well into the following day so don’t become a casualty or a statistic.  A merry Christmas to you all.