SUMMER TIME (Hansard, 11 December 1962)

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse)
I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of section 2 of the Summer Time Act 1947, praying that the Summer Time Order 1963 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 29th November. I should say a word or two about the background to this Order, and about the Government's intentions in moving it. The House will be aware that the Summer Time Acts of 1922 and 1925 provided that Summer Time should run from the Sunday after the third Saturday in April until the Sunday after the first Saturday in October, except in years when Easter Day falls on the former Sunday—that in April—in which case Summer Time starts a week earlier. An Act passed in 1947 provided that 367 Summer Time could be varied in any one year by Order in Council, and it is in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of that Act that this draft Order has been laid.
The background to the Order is that three years ago the Government conducted an inquiry in which a large number of bodies, representative, as far as we were able to make it so, of all sections of the community, were invited to express their views about the period of Summer Time. The replies we had to those inquiries showed that the weight of opinion was strongly in favour of the extension of the statutory period fixed by the first two Acts I have mentioned.
A considerable number of organisations went as far as to propose the adoption of mid-European time, which would be tantamount to having Summer Time all the year round. Others, including some which are of special importance in the interests they represent, favoured a more limited extension of Summer Time. After carefully considering the, points of view that had been expressed, the Government decided to propose, on an experimental basis, a modest extension by six weeks, made up of three weeks in the spring and three weeks in the autumn. This was done in the hope and belief that it would best suit the needs and wishes of the majority, and the proposal was debated in December, 1960, when there was scarcely any opposition, approval being given for its introduction in 1961.
The arrangements proved generally popular, and Parliament authorised its continuance in the following year. We have considered the matter again in the light of public reaction to the operation of the experiment over the last two years. The result is that we have had notice of adverse comment from only one of the organisations consulted in 1960—the National Farmers' Union of Scotland—and we have had only a very few disapproving letters from members of the public. My right hon. Friend believes that it is justifiable to take this as evidence that the extended period of Summer Time commends itself to the public at large and we have, therefore, decided to propose the continuance of these arrangements next year, so that 368 Summer Time in 1963 will begin on 31st March and end on 27th October.
The draft Order giving effect to this proposal applies only to 1963 and does not prejudice in any way the position in future years. The Government's proposals for those years will naturally take account of any public reaction there may be to the continuance of this experiment.

§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
I support this proposal. As far as I know, there is no opposition to it in any part of the House. My experience, and that of those whom I have had the opportunity of consulting, goes to show that the experiment of having an extended period of Summer Time has been generally welcomed. I am not sure that it is now generally realised that during the last year or two, as will be the case next year, we shall have had Summer Time for about seven out of the twelve months of the year.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has referred to the alternative of going over to mid-European time, which, in effect, would mean having Summer Time throughout the year. It is my belief that there is no demand for that. Indeed, there might be some opposition to it. Those with whom I have discussed this feel that this year in particular, when we had such a remarkably fine month of October, it was a considerable boon to have the added advantage of the extra hour of daylight in the evenings. Although we cannot have an extra hour both in the mornings and in the evenings, as some people would desire, particularly those who get up early in the morning, the balance of convenience obviously is in favour of having that extra hour of daylight at the latter end of the day rather than at the beginning. I hope, therefore, that the Order will commend itself to all quarters of the House.

§ Mr. B. T. Parkin (Paddington, North)
I welcome the Under-Secretary's indication that this matter is still experimental. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that there never will be a demand for a continuation of the system into Central European Time. It seems from what the Under-Secretary said that the clue to the 369 acceptance of the present extended period is that people have discovered that it is not so onerous as it used to be to get up in the dark and go to work. The period was originally fixed at a time when people could just get to work in the daylight and get home and enjoy long light evenings.
We should bear in mind two things. The first is that since Mr. Willett originally devised this idea a tremendous revolution has taken place in the systems and cost of artificial lighting and the objection to working in the hours of darkness has largely disappeared. In the light of this technical progress, the demand in future will be for more and more leisure time in daylight. I should have thought, therefore, that if the Under-Secretary will keep open his inquiries, with an alert ear to the ground or an eye to the sky as to what the changing desires of the population are, he will find that he will best meet the need of the raised standard of living that we hear so much about by helping to meet what is the finest improvement in the standard, that is, greater leisure. Greater leisure means more opportunity to choose the way in which one spends it. Hitherto, we have been able to think only in terms of the evening. The long-term objective should, I suggest, be to secure the maximum amount of free time during daylight and the maximum amount of work done during the hours of darkness, as is now possible.
There must be very few offices and shops in London, for instance, where artificial lighting is not used throughout the day, and there must be many factories where the same applies. It is now no hardship to work under artificial light, but it is a great hardship to have to take one's leisure only during the hours of darkness. I suggest, therefore, that, if the Minister is inclined to press on from year to year, urging people to accept the extension of this idea, he will be in step with a developing desire of public opinion.
I am very glad that he does not choose to rest upon Mr. Willett's device. Mr. Willett's device does not settle the matter for all time, any more than Mr. Plimsoll's line solved the problem of safety in ships. It sometimes happens that a device or scheme of this kind stops progressive thinking because 370 people imagine that the problem is solved by an Order in Council and do not consider it further. Of course, it is not solved for ever, and public opinion will continue to develop its view. If the Minister will be aware of it in good time, this wild be a good thing, and I am glad to have this opportunity tonight to say so.

§ Mr. Woodhouse
If I may have leave to speak again, I can reply in one sentence. I think that there is a good deal in what both hon. Gentlemen have said, but it is my right hon. Friend's view that at present it is premature to consider legislation for a permanent alteration.