UK Parliament / Open data

Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill

Proceeding contribution from Russell Brown (Labour) in the House of Commons on Friday, 26 January 2007. It occurred during Debate on bills on Energy Saving (Daylight) Bill.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Some of the arguments that are being made in this debate can be shaped or moulded into whatever form we want, but the fact remains that for some individuals and families today’s roads can result in tragedy. What is significant is not merely the fact that people are on the roads, but how they use that time on the roads—for example, they should drive with proper care and attention. The Department for Transport and my colleagues north of the border—as well as those in the other devolved Administrations—need to do much more to ensure that we have greater road safety. People in the workplace is another important issue. We have heard about the postal workers. Unfortunately, some of the statistics show that darker mornings result in greater risk to them. Some people might say, ““Well, it’s an insignificant risk”” but any risk is a risk, and it is probably not a risk worth taking. I accept that there is no evidence that accidents at work would increase as a result of a change in the hour, and I am aware that there is pressure for change, but that pressure is not necessarily coming from health and safety representatives in workplaces. I am conscious of the time, but I want to address clauses 5, 6 and 7 and the opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to consider what position to take on the change. As I have said, this is something of a false choice; Scotland and the rest of the UK go along with what happens here. We all know of the problems that can arise; however, the hon. Member for South Suffolk has decided in his wisdom to include these clauses in the Bill, thereby allowing the Scottish Parliament to examine this issue. Let me make it clear that I have every confidence in my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament taking the decision that is right for the people of Scotland and to their full benefit, but I do have anxieties based on the geographical location not only of my constituency, but of where I live. As I pointed out at the beginning of the debate, following the boundary changes of almost two years ago, I no longer live in the constituency that I represent. My MP is the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—[Hon. Members: ““Where is he?””] He is not here today, unless he is elsewhere on the parliamentary estate. The Bill undoubtedly raises issues for the 3,000-odd people who cross the border daily for employment purposes and to attend social events. It is not just a one-way process, moreover; people cross from both directions in the morning to go to work, for example. Business would be affected by the Bill. Someone mentioned earlier those who drive delivery vehicles, for example, for a living. I tried to imagine how the Bill would affect a small business with depots either side of the border that employs, say, 10 drivers. They would have to drive from one depot across the border to deliver to customers in one time zone, and then go to the other depot to pick up the next delivery. They would have to hurry in order to deliver to businesses before they close—businesses that they would not previously have expected to be closed.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
455 c1730-1 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Back to top