|
Mr. Hopkins: I am sorry to intervene once again, but I make the counterpoint that the total economic cost of a traffic accident death is considerable to society. Hospitals, accident vehicles and bereavement all add
Column Number: 11
up to hundreds of thousands of pounds in each case, so only a very few deaths would make an enormous financial difference to the Treasury and to society generally. The amount involved in putting on seat belts is very small by comparison.
Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been estimated that a death on the road can cost more than £1 million. For a serious injury, the cost can be hundreds of thousands of pounds. Even slight injuries can work out costing thousands of pounds, so there is a saving here. One has only to think of the number of casualties that we had back in the 1950s and 1960s to imagine the cost to business and industry, let alone in personal terms to people's lives, if we had no seat belt laws at all.
The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned the Post Office. I can tell him that Royal Mail Group plc responded to the consultation in 2003. Its policy is that its drivers must wear seat belts at all times, so they do not rely on any legal exemption for local deliveries. Its overall view was that the exemption for local deliveries should be abolished entirely, because it accepts the compelling case for wearing seat belts. That is one view from one of the big industries that would be affected by the provision. Royal Mail Group plc already has a policy that its drivers must wear a seat belt at all times while driving.
Mr. Chope: Would the Minister perhaps surmise that one reason why the Royal Mail is in such financial difficulty is that it is totally financially unrealistic about the laws that it is trying to enforce over its employees?
Mr. Jamieson: I am not going to explore that particular argument. All I will say is that it shows that, whatever else hon. Members think about the Royal Mail, it is clearly a responsible employer. It takes the interests of its employees seriously. As shown by the interchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), we can also see the
Column Number: 12
problems when there are collisions and people are injured. That does great damage to the delivery service, particularly at this time of year.
Let me deal with the issue of metrication versus imperial measures. The provision has been expressed in metres. I am sure that the Committee and the hon. Member for Christchurch will be aware that the European Union requirements for harmonisation of unit measurements are set out in Council directive 80/181/EEC as amended. The directive requires member states to adopt metric units as the primary system of measurement for economic, public health, public safety or administrative purposes, including the making of legislation.
One does not have to be clairvoyant to see that that was agreed to by the Government in 1980. I am not sure which party was in government at the time, but my history is not very good—the hon. Member for Christchurch probably has a better knowledge of history than I do and he may inform us which party was in power at the time. It has just come into my mind that Baroness Thatcher was the Prime Minister at the time that the measure went through. That is the reason why—we have been tied down by the actions of a previous Conservative Government. Not that I disagree with the measure, of course, but we are tied down by the measures that they agreed to then.
Mr. Chope: It may have had something to do with the fact that the Chairman of the Committee was a Member of the European Parliament at the time.
Mr. Jamieson: I will definitely not get drawn into that matter, Mr. Forth. I think that this is a small and good measure and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Motor Vehicles (Seat Belts) (Amendment) Regulations 2005.
Committee rose at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.
| 
