Drink-driving cave-in to alcohol lobby

Before the last general election the Labour Party made it quite clear that one of its aims was to lower the drink-drive limit from 80mg alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg. For three years there has been speculation as to when this measure would be taken. Alert has reported on a number of occasions the increasingly cautious statements of ministers, in particular Lord Whitty, and the likelihood that the government would backtrack on its commitment. Now it has given way to pressure from the drink industry and rural pub lobby and rejected the overwhelming support for the introduction of the wrongly labelled "one-pint limit" to combat drink-driving.

The decision has been taken to ignore the advice of police, magistrates, and the medical profession, who are all in favour of lowering the blood alcohol limit to 50mg. For the time being the limit will remain at 80mg. This policy was contained in the the Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions (DETR) document, Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone, published in March. The purpose is to set out the government's road safety strategy and casualty reduction targets for the year 2010.

Consultation carried out by the DETR showed that there was a convincing majority in favour of the lower limit: 206 respondents were in favour of 50mg, while 163 wanted to keep the existing limit. At the same time, opinion surveys indicated that 75 per cent of respondents were in favour of a 50mg limit or one that is lower still. Only about 20 per cent want the limit to stay at its present level. Interestingly, given that young men are the largest alcohol consuming group, the strongest support for the 80mg limit comes from men over 25.

The department's report on the consultation, which is available separately from "Tomorrow's roads", says that the response shows very clearly the concerns of two overlapping interests about a lower limit: those of the alcohol industries and those of rural communities generally. Both are concerned primarily about the viability of rural pubs if a lower limit is adopted and properly enforced.

"Pubs and hotels can be a locally significant source of employment, and those in rural areas are particularly dependent on access by cars."

Organisations that oppose any reduction in the limit include the brewers, distillers, and other drinks manufacturers, as well as the Federation of Small Businesses, the Road Haulage Association, and the national association of local councils.

Those in favour of a 50mg limit include the Automobile Association, the British Medical Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Magistrates' Association, the Transport Research Laboratory, and the Honourary Medical Advisory Panel on Alcohol.

As a result of the intense pressure from the drink industry, ministers appear to have looked around for a way out of their previous commitment. With an almost audible sigh of relief, "Tomorrow's Roads" says: "However, there is a European context to this debate. The European Commission is currently reviewing its existing proposal for a Directive on the drink-drive limit. Though we do not yet have details, it is likely there will be continued pressure for a harmonised 50mg overall limit in Europe, and possibly even lower limits for specific categories of driver. If the UK acted unilaterally, we could end up having to readjust to new European regulations soon afterwards. We therefore intend to deal with proposed reductions in the European context."

Alcohol policy experts point out that the vast majority of member states in the EU already have the lower limit and that any move now by the United Kingdom Government would hardly be likely to confuse the issue. Furthermore, any EU Directive is unlikely to appear for several years since officials in Brussels are known to be reluctant to act because of widely differing views held across the union.

There is, of course, a public health context, as well as the European, and this is grimly illustrated by the transport research laboratory's calculations which show that reducing the limit to 50mg would save 50 lives and prevent 250 serious and 1,200 slight injuries every year. The transport department report regards this as a conservative estimate which must stand as some sort of reproach to the ministers' continued inactivity.

The consultation report sets out powerful evidence to show that lower limits have led to improvements in road safety. This has been the case in a number of Australian states after a reduction to 50mg enforced alongside other measures such as increased breath testing. France, Sweden, Canada, and several states of the USA have all reduced their limits with similar results.

An official source said the government feared that a reduction in the drink-drive limit would cause a political backlash. "To reduce the limit again would be like asking people not to eat beef off the bone - they would just continue to do it." How this squares with the three quarters of the population which wants the 50mg limit the "source" did not say.

The photograph above show Her Majesty the Queen awarding the MBE to Maria Cape of the Campaign Against Drink Driving. The government is happy to recommend honours - deserved ones - but refuses to take any practical measures to save the lives lost to drunken drivers. Is it surprising that the Prime Minister is accused of gesture politics?