§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Timothy Raison)I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1982 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th October, in the last Session of Parliament.The order continues the existing arrangements for the starting and ending dates of summer time. Summer time will start on the last Sunday in March and end on the Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October.
Hon. Members will recall that in 1980, as a result of discussions within the European Community, we decided on a common starting date for summer time in the Community.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)Are we introducing these measures of our own volition or are we forced to by our EC membership?
§ Mr. RaisonIf my hon. Friend will listen, he will find that the whole point of the measure is that we have not come to an agreement in the Community and have decided to go our separate ways; so he can sleep happily in his bed.
Under the previous system there were two time changes as between ourselves and the continental member States within the space of a fortnight. That caused dislocation, expense and inconvenience, particularly for transport undertakings and others with personal or commercial dealings with other Community countries. The new arrangement, which was given effect to by the Summer Time Order 1980 for an initial period of two years, appears to have worked well, and in subsequent discussions with our Community partners we have agreed to continue it.
As for the finishing date, the House will recall that when the draft Summer Time Order 1980 was debated, I drew attention to the difficulties of reaching agreement on this. At present, summer time in the United Kingdom ends on the day following the fourth Saturday in October, whereas in continental member States it ends at the end of September.
Various proposals for harmonising these dates have been made, but it became clear in discussion that geographical and social factors meant that there was not yet sufficient common ground for us to reach agreement. The balance of opinion in the United Kingdom still seems firmly in favour of having summer time for as long as possible so that people have light evenings to enjoy sport and leisure activities.
We have not been able to obtain agreement within the Community on a common ending date, but we have agreed for the present that the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic should be nominally regarded as a maritime zone and that the other member States be regarded as a continental zone. On that basis, the present dates would continue for a further period of three years. It was following this agreement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced to the House on 11 March that he intended to seek the approval of the House to a draft Order in Council extending existing summer time arrangements.
114 It may assist the House if I comment briefly on the text of the draft order. It is proposed that the order should be made under section 2 of the Summer Time Act 1972 which provides, among other things, that Her Majesty may by Order in Council specify a period for summer time other than the usual period provided for by the Act.
Article 1(2) of the order provides that it shall have effect in the United Kingdom and the Bailiwick of Guernsey. I should explain that the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man propose to follow suit, but they have their own legislation on the subject.
Articles 2, 3 and 4 provide for the proposed starting dates of 27 March 1983, 25 March 1984 and 31 March 1985. The finishing dates provided for in each article are the finishing dates that would occur through the ordinary operation of the 1972 Act. The changeover time of 1 am contained in the Summer Time Order 1980 is retained and is to ensure that summer time starts at the same moment throughout the European Community.
As the House will have realised, the draft order simply represents a continuation of existing arrangements for the next three years.
§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)After the hurly-burly of the Transport Bill it is probably a pleasure for the House to turn to the relative tranquillity of British summer time, even on as unlikely a date as 15 November.
As the Minister said, the order is an extension of the British Summer Time Order 1980. Although I referred to peace and tranquillity, it was not always thus when the House discussed moving the clocks backwards and forwards. The original proposal to do so in 1908 by Mr. William Willett, MP was strongly opposed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was not until 1916, in the middle of the First World War, that the House agreed to such an experiment.
The Minister referred to our all wanting to see daylight during the summer for as long as possible. In comparison with more modern times, and as recently as 1968, hon. Members who have been here longer than me—most hon. Members present—will recall the fairly acrimonious debate on the British Standard Time Bill.
I hope that the House will allow me a few minutes to refer to what happened in 1968. If one reads the list of hon. Members who opposed the revolutionary concept of double summer time—that was the proposal in 1968—it reads like a reactionary record of those gone by. When one sees that such a proposal was opposed by such hon. Members as Captain Walter Elliot and Sir Spencer Summers, some hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, feel that the proposal had something to commend it. Some of what was said then bears repetition in 1982.
One such statement was surprisingly accurate. It disposed of some of the arguments that were advanced by the Conservative Opposition. It came from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who, I should have thought, is far too young to have been an hon. Member in 1968. In reply to a few Conservative Members who said that the proposal to put the clocks forward would mean that anyone wishing to telephone Europe would have to get out of bed earlier—double time was intended to bring us into line with Europe throughout the year—my hon. Friend said: 115
If they are concerned about getting orders from Europe, they should get up a little earlier and make their telephone calls a little earlier. They do not have to go to work at 10.30. They can get up at 7 o'clock, the hour at which most workers set off to work."—[Official Report, 23 January 1968; Vol. 757, c. 311.]I do not know whether the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who usually regards any mention of Europe as a provocation that requires him to leap instantly to his feet, would have agreed with my hon. Friend had he been here in 1968. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend disposed of the argument.It is surprising that the passion raised in that debate 14 years ago was largely misplaced, if only because the arguments then put forward are now shown to have lacked any great relevance. That change took place in 1968, although the House decided in 1971 that double summer time was perhaps too much of a good thing and reverted to the principle now before us.
§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)Overwhelmingly.
§ Mr. SnapeAs always, I am delighted to accept correction and advice from my hon. Friend. It happens only occasionally, but I am grateful when it does.
Another view in the 1968 debate was put forward by Mrs. Winifred Ewing who, until 1979, represented a constituency north of the border on behalf of the Scottish National Party. She was against the proposal at that time and said:
I made a fair point that there would be less inclination to do something which is already hard—getting up in the morning—if it has to be done in the dark. I warn the House there will be a great deal of absenteeism as a result"—[Official Report, 23 January 1968; Vol. 757, c. 363.]of the proposals then before the House.Mrs. Ewing has been proved wrong, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walton has been proved right. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), who is the only Labour Back Bencher present, will agree that the order should be supported.
§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)I suspect that, like most hon. Members, I am in favour of summer time and against winter. I do not care for winter, and the way in which we organise our affairs brings winter to bear on far too many of us rather earlier than it need be done.
I do not dissent from these proposals, and as always I shall support the Minister if the matter is pressed to a Division. I was already a Member of the House when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made his case. I can remember the various debates on these matters, and I can see the advantage of our having, if we can manage it, a community of time, as well as other things, with our partners in Western Europe. I can well understand why the Home Secretary has accepted the notion that the United Kingdom, the Irish Republic and the various islands should be regarded as a maritime zone. There is no difficulty about that.
Why can we not leave summer time where it is until about 15 November? Under the present system it gets light at about 7 am, when many people are still abed, but at the other end of the day, at 4.30 or 5 pm, we are confronted with darkness before we need have it.
116 I accept the problems of Scotland and the notional problems of agriculture. Frankly, not everyone involved in agriculture now gets up at 5 am to start milking the cows. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to consider starting the winter on about 15 November rather than on the day following the fourth Saturday in October, as at present. Everyone would gain from that. It would not damage the Scots and it would not damage agriculture, but it would give us a longer period of daylight in the afternoon for our people to enjoy at least for a further two weeks. I do not believe that any disbenefit that would be caused in the mornings justifies insistence on the present arrangements.
§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)I have always been intrigued as to why the European Community thinks like a small Power. I thought that to some extent the intention of amalgamating the small Powers of Western Europe was so that they could compete with the great Powers.
The continental part of the United States alone has about five time zones, with additional zones for Hawaii and Alaska. The USSR has about eight time zones and China a further half dozen, although some of those overlap. Yet for some reason in 1968 the view was taken that the whole of Western Europe had to be the same because we were in the European Community.
§ Mr. RaisonThe debate is not about time zones but about the starting date of summer time. There are still different time zones. We still have a different time from the rest of Western Europe. This is rather different.
§ Mr. EnglishI am sure that the Minster recalls, as I do, the discussions that took place in 1968. The idea was that we should all change at the same time. I agree that the time zones and the time of change are different matters, but one still has to have the same summer time if one has the same time zone. Otherwise, it would not matter a hoot. There is no point in all of us having the same summer time if we are all in different time zones. It would be irrelevant.
It does not matter if the relative time is changed if the time is different in any case, so long as everyone knows that it is. When one travels across the United States in a aeroplane, somebody says "Please change your watch", so one does. If one is making a telephone call, one has a little table, or preferably a secretary, who says "Don't forget that for him it is 7 am" or whatever time it may be. I do not see any difficulty in that. If that can be done in the USSR, in the United States and in China, why do people in Western Europe think like small Powers?
It is really all about uniformity. It is the amalgamation of bottle tops. Why do we have to change to summer time at the same time on the same day? With what object and for whose convenience is it?
I believe that it might be reasonable to engage in a compromise with our allies in Western Europe, although our other allies across the Atlantic would no doubt be puzzled at our behaviour, but why is the compromise all one way? I have not checked this personally, but, as I understand it, under the 1972 Act the reference to 27 March in article 2 of the order should be to 20 March, the reference to 25 March in article 3 should be to 17 March and the reference to 31 March in article 4 should be 16 March. It all goes one way, in one direction—towards 117 shorter and shorter summer time, which is not what the British people want, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) made clear.
I do not mind a compromise, but this all goes one way. Why do we not say that the others should obey our Act one year and we will obey theirs the next? It would be roughly a couple of weeks difference. They would have to put up with our longer summer time and, in return, we would have to put up with their shorter summer time. That would be a fair compromise. Why are we progressing slowly towards shorter summer times during the next three years? The Minister of State should explain that.
§ Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West)I am, and always have been, completely opposed to the proposal. Some years ago, we managed to persuade the House, by a majority of three to one, to get rid of such a proposal and to retain summer time. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and some of his colleagues from the North of England and Scotland ganged together quietly and we were outnumbered in the Lobbies. Those who represent tourism and sport in the South and all those with a sensible approach were, unfortunately, defeated.
We are once again in that awkward position. We should try to achieve community of time with Europe over a period, but in the meantime we must try to assist tourism and sport by extending summer time. There is no reason why it should finish at the end of October. The middle of November would be soon enough. At the other end, we should start summer time at the beginning of March. Footballers and all sportsmen would support that proposal strongly.
There is no longer any reason why farmers, whether from the North, South, East or West, should not change their times to meet the proposal. It is said that children in the North of England must go to school in the dark. Whether they go to school or return from it in the dark is not relevant to our consideration of the matter. We wish to ensure that, on 15 November, they can go to school in relative light.
The compromise that we seek is that we should at least change the period next year. If there must be a difference, summer time must begin in March and end on 15 November. That is only fair. I appreciate the case made by those in Scotland and the North, but we in the South see no merit in rising at 6 am, when it is light, and retiring at 4 pm or 4.30 pm. The cost to householders is considerable and electricity bills are increased. There are no grounds for the continuation of the present arrangement and I hope that we shall have sufficient support in the next Parliament to restore the position either fully or in part and to have a more sensible period than we have now.
§ Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Thornaby)I do not oppose the sentiments of the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmucnds (Mr. Griffiths). The more that we can extend summer time the better it will be. I agree with the statement of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that we do not need uniformity in the sense of different time zones, which are acceptable. There is a case for a maritime zone and a Central European Continental zone.
118 However, it is of overriding importance that we have uniform starting and ending dates. We must have the minimum of dislocation expense and inconvenience to those who live in and travel through Europe as a result of the changes in summer time. I hope that the Minister will give the House more details of the geographical and social problems that European countries have advanced in resisting the common dates that we wish to have.
§ Mr. MarlowThe hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) have mentioned costs. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether he believes that the cost of not having uniformity—changing our time scale to a different one from our partners in Europe—would be greater or less than the additional cost to industry of starting the lights burning earlier in the evening as a result of our having less summer time than at present?
§ Mr. WrigglesworthThe hon. Gentleman has just heard me say that I am in favour of extending summer time to the maximum possible extent, and of seeking to get agreement. I am painfully aware from all my business contacts that a great deal of disruption, confusion and inconvenience are caused to businesses by having time changes. Hon Members, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, spend a great deal of time talking about the need for British industry to become competitive and to create further employment. If we are to do that, we must respond to the wishes of those in business to have as few impediments to their efficient operation as possible. Therefore, I should have thought that the whole House would want to see the harmony of time, as well as of other factors, within the Community.
I hope that the Minister and the Government will continue to press for that goal, giving us as long a summer time, at the beginning and the end, as we can possible achieve in discussions with our partners in the Community but seeking above all to achieve that goal of a common beginning and a common ending to summer time.
§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)The main and probably the only real argument that has been advanced over the years against extending summer time is the undesirability of children in Scotland and the North of England going to school in the dark.
The shortest day in the year is 21 December. We are suggesting that summer time should finish towards the end of October. That is two months before the shortest day of the year. We are suggesting at the same time that summer time should start towards the end of March, which is some three months after the shortest day. As my right hon. Friend the Minister has suggested that we are to have uniformity with the Community at the beginning of summer time but that for good reasons we are not to have it at the end of summer time, would it not make more sense and be more consistent with our concern for the schoolchildren in the North of England and Scotland if we coincided with regard to the finishing of summer time but had a much earlier commencement to summer time in the United Kingdom? That is particularly so as I believe it is the feeling of the House, and has been expressed so this evening, that we should increase the period of summer time as much as possible. There is no possible way in which the school children would be inconvenienced or put 119 in danger if we were to start summer time at the end of February or at the beginning of March because they would not be so inconvenienced or endangered by its ending towards the end of October.
The House would be grateful if my right hon. Friend could give an assurance that in future he will seek with the Europeans, or, if necessary, without the Europeans, to enlarge the period of our summer time, and that perhaps it should in future commence towards the beginning of March.
My right hon. Friend should look again at the question I asked the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) about cost benefit analysis. While I accept that people doing business with the Continent get advantages from uniformity, the additional cost to industry and other parts of the community of having to keep the lights burning for longer because summer time is reduced are far greater than the cost and inconvenience of not having uniformity.
§ Mr. RaisonWe have had a spirited debate. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was more reminiscent than probing and did not pose any questions that he wanted me to answer.
§ Mr. RaisonAnd I am duly grateful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said that he liked summer and disliked winter. A ripple of agreement went through the House at that remark and I share my hon. Friend's sentiment, but he asked why we do not let summer time last until 15 November. Such a change would have to be canvassed widely throughout the country. Those of us who were in the House in the early 1970s remember that when we debated whether we should have summer time all year round there was strong feeling among farmers and others, especially in the North, in favour of the solution that was arrived at then.
It has not been the practice for summer time to end in November. It has happened in one or two years this century, but an October date has been the custom and I do not think that we could go for a later date without much consideration. It would be a pity to move to a later date, because that would be a move away from European practice. There are benefits in compromises in this matter.
The hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) was right. Constant timetable changes are an awful nuisance, to put it mildly, for the tourist industry. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said that tourism is an important consideration and I appreciate that he was speaking for his constituents as well as for the rest of us.
The tourist trade would be only too pleased to get a standardisation of the timetable switch. Changing timetables four times a year was a considerable burden and the trade was pleased that we managed to get a compromise with our European partners on the starting date for summer time, even though we have not been able to achieve a compromise on the finishing point. We should not think of increasing the divergence between the Continental practice and that in this country.
120 The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) talked about time zones, but the order has nothing to do with time zones. It relates to the days on which summer time starts and finishes. Within those dates we have different time zones and they are not affected by the order.
It is not true to say that the compromise has been all one way. The compromise on the beginning of summer time was a classic; we gave up a week and they gave up a week. The Europeans showed that they were willing to change their normal practice. They went halfway to meet us and we went halfway to meet them. What could be a better compromise? My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) would regard a reasonable compromise as one in which the Europeans went 99.9 per cent. of the way towards us and we went 0.1 per cent. of the way towards them, but that is not a view which could be pressed easily.
§ Mr. EnglishThe hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made a valid point. Why do we start summer time more than halfway between the winter solstice and the summer solstice, whereas we end it the other way round? If the right hon. Gentleman regards that as a compromise, he has a funny idea of what constitutes a compromise. He seems to think that the nearer we get to summer the less it matters whether we have summer time, and the nearer we get to winter the later we should go on.
§ Mr. RaisonThere are compromises and compromises, and it is a normal, perhaps rather prosaic, compromise to have the two parties to a discussion saying "We shall each give way a bit". It may sound rather banal, but it was a sensible compromise and we can pat ourselves on the back for it. One does not have to be excessively communautaire to see the merit in the agreement. I have to confess that I can never remember what a solstice is and I am, therefore, not able to give the hon. Gentleman the answer that he deserves.
My argument in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds about the ending day also applies to the starting day. I do not mind confessing that I was sympathetic to the idea of summer time the whole year round when the matter was debated some years ago. However, the issue cannot be opened up within the terms of this order. It would be better, if one were contemplating going down that path, to act in harmony with our European friends and fellow passengers. Tourists and the travel industry have a legitimate interest in the kind of compromise that was achieved.
§ Mr. Eldon GriffithsMy hon. Friend is always reasonable, and I ask him to go further. He could see the attractions of moving to 15 November for the end of summer time. His objection was that we would be removed further from our European friends. It is common ground that we have not achieved a compromise with Europe at that end of the season. My hon. Friend stated, however, that he would wish to take wide soundings. Is he prepared to take soundings to discover the burden of opinion before the three-year period runs out?
§ Mr. RaisonI cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have behaved in a reasonably compromising manner in being as sympathetic as possible to my hon. Friend, who should accept what I say as a reasonable response. To be serious, I cannot give the undertaking for 121 which he asks. He is, however, adept at stirring up and sounding public opinion. I have no doubt that his words will be widely quoted and acknowledged. No one knows. There may be a tremendous demand.
I must stick the position that what the Government have put before the House is right in present circumstances. We have a satisfactory arrangement about the beginning of summer time, based on compromise and movement by the two sides. We have had to acknowledge that we have not yet been able to get a similar arrangement for the ending of summer time. For the time being, we are having each to go our own way. It would be wrong to encourage the idea that we might move still further in a wintry direction. The order that we propose is right and I hope that the House will support it.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Resolved.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time Order 1982 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th October, in the last Session of Parliament.
-
c121
- PUBLIC ACCOUNTS 33 words c121
- PROCEDURE (FINANCE) 28 words