SUMMER TIME (Hansard, 4 February 1952)

§ Mr. Ede (South Shields)

The House is entitled to some explanation of the Order from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, although I sympathise with him in the difficulties at the moment confronting him. He has had the Welsh debate all day and I know that his Welsh Under-Secretary is indisposed. I understand that he is also learning the Welsh language, but I do not know whether the two have any connection.

The appointment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), was only announced today, and I suppose it is felt that the defence of the Order would take more preparation than he has been able to give to it since his appointment was announced. I should like to express the congratulations of the House to the hon. Baronet upon his appointment. We know him as a man who appears to be perpetually genial, and we sincerely hope that he will have a gay life at the Home Office and that the extent of the gaiety may be in inverse proportion to the shortness of the life which we hope he will have there.

I say that the House is entitled to some explanation of the Order because when I moved a similar Order in 1950 the present Secretary of State for Scotland was most severe in his criticism of me, and he was joined in that severity of criticism by one of his Joint Under-Secretaries, the hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Snadden). The right hon. Gentleman said: 760 It is, after all, nearly five years since the end of the war. These hours were departed from only as a war measure. I realise that there are conflicting interests to consider, such as the fuel and power position, but I would remind the Home Secretary that the continuation of Summer Time into the late Autumn, or at least towards the end of October, is a heavy additional cost on the farmers in those parts of the country where there is a late harvest. The farmer cannot do his havesting until late in the day, with the result that he runs into overtime earlier than would normally be the case. The sun still performs its usual function in getting the dew off the grass at the normal time. He then gave us some indication of the way in which he would approach the problem had he the responsibility: I always think it is rather foolish that the human race should have invented clever devices for time-keeping, and then, having worked them effectively for so many years, should now resort to these new devices, fooling ourselves, by legislation, that the time is not what it ought to be. As we all know, neither the animals nor the sun descend to these devices. I often think that if the cow could speak to us, she would tell us how stupid we appear to be, looked at from her tranquil point of view. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has had some further interviews with the cow. At any rate, he appears to have got from her the idea that the policy which we were pursuing in 1950 is the right policy to be pursued today. But I have my doubts about that, because in the final paragraph of his speech the right hon. Gentleman said: I ask the Home Secretary to bear in mind that his responsibilities in this connection do not cease at the Border. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will impress upon him the necessity of taking care of our northern interests. If the Government cannot tell us today that they will revert to the normal pre-war practice, I hope that next year they will do their best to achieve this end—if they are still in office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 2315.] I do not know what influence the Secretary of State for Scotland has brought to bear upon the Home Secretary in this matter, because the curious thing about this Order is that it takes us a week later into October than the previous Order did. It gives us exactly the same number of days, but it starts a week later in April and ends a week later in October. In this year it will end on 26th October, the anniversary of the date on which the Prime Minister 761 was asked to form the present Government, so that when the clock goes back this year we shall be reminded that it is the anniversary of the day on which the political clock went back. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member on a delightful piece of political humour, as that appears to be.

I know that this matter is always a question of the balance of interests in the considerations of the various Departments, but this year the Secretary of State for Scotland should have been reinforced by the fact that the Minister of Transport is also a Scottish Member. Transport and Fuel and Power always seem to be one of the balances, and the various agricultural Ministries are the other. I should like to know from the Home Secretary what was the balance of considerations that prevailed this year and why the date was moved a week further into the year. We are a week later in starting than the permanent Act that was passed some years before the war, and which specified the appropriate date.

I would ask the Home Secretary to pay particular attention to the speech made on 24th March, 1950, by the present Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He referred to the heavy liabilities that this Order threw upon the agricultural industry of Scotland. He said: We look upon this matter, therefore, as being a serious one from the point of view of efficiency and maximum food production."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 2316.] It is wise—and I say this in contradistinction to some of the things said in 1950—that we should continue to have an annual debate on this matter, because it enables us to ensure that this device, which undoubtedly confers great benefits upon the townspeople in the way of providing an additional hour for recreation during the summer months, is continued. This annual review enables us to discuss the balance year by year, and while I do not intend to oppose this Order tonight, we are entitled to some explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the reasons why these particular dates were fixed.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe)

I must apologise to the House and to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for having misinterpreted their mood. He will agree with me that one of the most difficult things is to prophesy when the House would welcome something going through without discussion and when they will be affronted by the same course and would welcome a discussion. I have been wrong and I can only apologise to the House.

I am delighted to respond to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman, and may I first explain to him why in this Order we suggest that Summer Time will extend from the morning of 20th April to the morning of 26th October.

Under the Summer Time Acts, 1922 and 1925, the time this year would have been from 20th April until 5th October, but the Act of 1947 provides for variation, by Order-in-Council, of the period specified in the earlier Acts. The effect of the Order will be to extend the period of Summer Time by three weeks. As the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, the time of extension is a question of a balance of interests. We decided, as the right hon. Gentleman's Government had decided for some time, that there would be no period of double Summer Time. Then we had to balance the claims and difficulties of agriculture, which we realised were against the saving of fuel that we were advised would result. So we decided to add a period of three weeks.

It was also decided that greater saving would be effected if the three weeks were taken at the end of the period in October. I think I am right in saying that the reason for the period starting on 20th April is that 13th April is Easter Sunday. It is obvious that there would be objections to making a change from the ordinary time to Summer Time on the morning of Easter Sunday. Therefore, we have taken the step of adding three weeks at the end.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the research he must have made before he made his speech. There are few more fascinating lines of research than the speeches of Members of the Government. I remember the right hon. 763 Gentleman wielding a lusty bludgeon on the back benches opposite, and then some suavely parrying thrusts when in office. Now he has abandoned the bludgeon and the defensive Claymore, and is returning to the attack with rapier accompanied by the cloak and dagger. He has the congratulations of us all. I hope that I have satisfied the curiosity, grounds for which the right hon. Gentleman has so ably demonstrated.