The trouble with discussing the relationship between alcohol and driving is that the basic principles are so technical. Once you start talking about milligrams of alcohol per millilitres of blood most people are lost.

That is a shame, because the outcome of the debate is quite literally a matter of life and death, particularly as the government has decided against reducing the legal limit for alcohol in a driver’s blood. This is despite suggestions it could save 65 lives a year. The government had previously planned to cut the limit from 80 to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Cutting the limit to 50 milligrams – equivalent to about half a pint of beer – would put drivers at risk of prosecution after just one drink, and bring them in line with Europe. But Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick has now said that the consultation document on plans to reduce drink-driving, to be published this month, will not recommend the reduction. According to ‘The Times’, he said “we are not convinced that dropping to 50 is the right answer. Drivers who are between 50 and 80mg are not the ones we’re most worried about. It’s the ones above 100.” He said his focus would now be on better enforcing the existing limit. Police could be given new powers to stop and test drivers at random rather than needing to suspect an offence is being committed.

Road safety campaigners have accused the Government of backtracking. The proposed reduction had been supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the AA, said that the motoring organisation used to oppose any lowering of the limit but had changed its position recently. The BMA’s Head of Science and Ethics, Dr Vivienne Nathanson, told BBC News that the BMA believed a reduction in the drink-drive limit would prevent deaths and reduce the number of lives ruined by drinking drivers. “There is clear evidence of the link between rising blood alcohol concentrations and dangerous driving behaviour,” and she added that a new impetus was needed to reduce the toll of injury and death.

Ben Webster, writing in ‘The Times’, suggests that “by leaving the alcohol limit unchanged, the Government will avoid the awkward question of whether to introduce a lower penalty for registering just over 50mg. At present, anyone caught drink-driving serves a minimum ban of 12 months. Most countries that have lower limits only fine drivers and give them penalty points for minor breaches.”

An earlier blog (10.06.08) contrasted ‘Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’, where 42 is the answer to the meaning of life, the universe and everything, with the Government, for whom 42 is more a problem than an answer. 42 achieved the status of a threat to the leadership of the Government through the wheeling, dealing and almost daily concessions to get the provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Bill through the Commons, with the actual number itself seeming to be sacrosanct.

This week the headache became a full blown migraine for the Government when plans to give police up to 42 days to question terrorism suspects were crushed by the House of Lords. Peers voted against the measure by 309 votes to 118. This came after opposition to the proposals from all sides, with 24 Labour rebels including two former Lord Chancellors, Lord Irvine and Lord Falconer, as well as Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, Lord Justice Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice, and Lord Condon, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

In an emergency statement to MPs, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith conceded defeat and said that the Counter-Terrorism Bill would continue its journey through Parliament without the 42 day measure. According to the ‘Guardian’, Government sources said the Prime Minister’s hand was forced because whips in the Commons told Downing Street that they would struggle to muster a majority in favour of the proposal. The 42 day plan was only passed by MPs in June by nine votes after the Prime Minister won the support of the nine Democratic Unionist MPs. If ministers had insisted on keeping the 42 day plan there would have been the need for a series of votes in the Commons to overturn the Lords’ rejection and eventually the use of the Parliament Act to force the bill through next year.

The capitulation was defiantly unrepentent. In her Commons statement, the Home Secretary was positively reproachful. She said “The other place has tonight voted to remove from the Counter-Terrorism Bill the protections that the government believes should be in place. Not to amend; not to strengthen; simply to remove. Mr Speaker, my priority remains the protection of the British people. I do not believe, as some hon. members clearly do, that it is enough to simply cross our fingers and hope for the best …that is not good enough. Because when it comes to national security, there are certain risks I’m not prepared to take.”

In what some see as a face saving gesture, the Home Secretary announced that she had “prepared a new bill to enable the police and prosecutors to do their work – should the worst happen, should a terrorist plot overtake us and threaten our current investigatory capabilities… The Counter Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill now stands ready to be introduced if and when the need arises. This would enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to apply to the courts to detain and question a terrorist suspect for up to a maximum of 42 days. Individuals could only be detained where this is authorised by a judge.” Once again the totemic 42 days.

The climb down has pleased a wide diversity of groups, and it is reported that David Davies, who resigned his seat and fought a by-election over this issue, shared a celebratory bottle of champagne in the Commons with Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty.