BRITISH STANDARD TIME (ABOLITION) BILL (Hansard, 1 May 1970)

§ Mr. J. B. Godber (Grantham)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is the first time in nearly 20 years in the House that I have had the privilege of moving my own Private Member's Bill. In a sense, therefore, it is a matter of regret to me that this Measure should be of an essentially negative character, in that it seeks to undo what others have done in the fairly recent past.

§ Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)
The best kind of Bill.

§ Mr. Godber
I am grateful to my hon. arid learned Friend.
Nevertheless, feeling, as I do, that the action of others in this case was both harmful and unwelcome to the majority of people, I welcome the opportunity to put right what was in my view a simple error of judgment on the part of those who sponsored and introduced British Standard Time.
The Bill is short and simple, and I am confident that it is comprehensible to every hon. Member who has had a chance to read it. I must confess that it was drafted in my own hand—to be truthful, on the back of an envelope—and it may therefore well be in need of some tidying up. On the other hand, the fact that it is unsullied, if I may put it in that way, by the pen of any lawyer may commend itself to those of of my colleagues on both sides who are not in that learned profession— [HON MEMBERS: " Hear, hear."] I am grateful for that evidence of support from both sides of the Chamber.
What I seek to do, and what I venture to believe my Bill would achieve, is to go back to the position operating immediately before the introduction of British Standard Time; namely, that we should have approximately eight months of Summer Time and about four months of Greenwich Mean Time in each year. 1622 If the Bill is accorded a Second Reading and if hon. Members seek to amend it in relation to the proportion of months, that aspect can be dealt with in Committee, but the eight months and the four months seem to be the most appropriate way in which to deal with that angle in the Bill. I am relying on Schedule 1 to the 1968 Act to bring about this purpose, and I am grateful for those who, when that Measure was in Standing Committee, played a part in inserting this clear provision for such a reversion. If I succeed in my purpose, we shall have a long period of Summer Time each year from about the beginning of March to the end of October.
My opposition to British Standard Time stems initially from my own personal feelings. I listened to all the arguments when the subject was debated in 1967 and 1968. I was wholly unconvinced by the arguments then produced by the Government, and I voted against both the Second and Third Readings of the Bill.
Incidentally, I could never understand just why the Government thought it necessary then to make an issue of the matter and to put on the Whips. At no time did we in the Conservative Party attempt to whip Members. We left it to their individual judgment, and I believe that the Government would have been much better advised to have done the same. I shall discuss later the Government's present attitude.
I was gratified to find a very large measure of support in my constituency for the attitude which I adopted in 1968, but this is the point at which I wish to draw a sharp distinction between attitudes in the spring and summer of 1968 and attitudes now. In 1968 we were all operating on a basis of guesswork and supposition. Many of us, it is true, had experienced one hour of so-called " daylight saving " during the winters of the war years, but those years were unpleasant to the memories of all of us and were obviously coupled to the difficulties of the blackout and other wartime restrictions, and so could not be used to make a fair comparison with present day conditions.
Accordingly, looking at the issue in prospect, many people were attracted to the idea of British Standard Time, and it was this that no doubt led to the 1623 favourable replies to the questionnaire which the Government sent out, and which appear very largely to have been the reason for the previous legislation, coming forward if one is to believe the arguments put forward by Ministers at that time. It was clear that it was as a result of those questionnaires that the Minister accepted the position.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, moving the Second Reading in another place, emphasised this when he said that it is what the community as a whole both want and expect "—[OFFICIAL REPORT,House of Lords,23rd November, 1967; Vol. 286, c. 1186.] That is very clear language: he was replying, as I say, on those questionnaires.
The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Ennals), moving the Second Reading in this House, was equally emphatic. After making various references to particular interests, he summed up by saying: What I can say, however, is that in England and Wales the change had clear majority support among every single section of opinion whom we consulted on its social implications—the Trade Union Congress, the local authority associations, the Consumer Council, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the sporting interests. and many others."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 297.] It is clear that this is what the Government were resting their case on. Of course, in addition to the social arguments, economic arguments were produced. I think I am in no sense distorting the Ministers' argument when I say that their case rested on public opinion through a host of organisations.

§ Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich)
The right hon. Member has referred to inquiries made by the present Government. I wonder if he is in a position to inform the House whether similar inquiries were made by the previous Government, and if so, whether they had a similar or a different result?

§ Mr. Godber
I cannot give a precise reply. Inquiries were made, I think, in 1960, but I have not the figures before me. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department can deal with that point. I understand that there was a move in public opinion between 1960 and 1968.
1624 These views were given in anticipation and in estimation of what people would feel when they were exposed to the delights of British Standard Time in the depths of winter. This is what hon. Members have to face. People were guessing what the reactions would be.

§ Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne (South Angus)
My right hon. Friend has referred on several occasions to estimates of public opinion. Is it not a rather important point that what the Government were going by—I should say wrongly going by—were opinions expressed by representative organisations, and they were estimating what the reactions of their members would be?

§ Mr. Godber
I suppose this is the way in which Governments normally have to get the views of the population, although this Government will have to submit themselves to a wider question with a General Election in the offing. That, however, would take me a little beyond the scope of my Bill.
In 1968 the Bill provided for an experimental period of three years after which there was provision either for making the experiment a permanent arrangement or reverting to Summer Time with a four-month period of Greenwich Mean Time in the heart of winter. Such an arrangement no doubt seemed eminently reasonable to the promoters of the Bill. No doubt it is possible to argue that the experiment should be allowed to run its full course and then a firm decision should be taken at the end of that time. My Bill seeks two things. First, it would limit the experiment to the two winters which the public have already experienced. Secondly, on the basis of that experiment we should revert to Summer Time with Greenwich Mean Time in our winter, and give up the blessings of British Standard Time forthwith.
The first point I have to establish is whether two winters have given the people a sufficient experience on which to base a considered judgment. My answer to that may be said to be biased on the ground that I was against the experiment from the start and voted against it in this House and that therefore I must turn to other evidence to justify my case. The first evidence I put forward is the enormous flood of correspondence which has reached me from 1625 every part of the United Kingdom, and from people in every category and walk of life. I have not attempted to bring the vast piles of correspondence into the House, but I have been surprised and pleased by the enormous amount of correspondence I have received on this matter.
When I introduced the Bill, I did so as a purely personal matter. I sought no particular publicity for it, but I had an enormous response. What is more significant is that, of this very large number of people who have written to me, I estimate that 97 per cent. are in favour and only about 3 per cent. are opposed. I would not pretend for a moment that this is a fair cross-section of the community, but it is an indication that very few people are so opposed to the Bill that they were prepared to write to me about it. Therefore, I think I am entitled to say that the majority who felt strongly on the issue were in favour of my Bill.
This is only a rough and ready indication, so I turn to a more scientific assessment. Various opinion polls on the subject have been published from time to time. The latest of which I am aware is the N.O.P. for February this year. In that poll, to the straightforward question, In winter, which is more important to you —to have more light in the morning or more fight in the afternoon? the answers were perfectly clear. It could not have been more fairly put and 56 per cent. of those who replied wanted more light in the morning, 32 per cent. wanted more in the afternoon and 12 per cent. said that it did not matter. No one said that he did not know, which is unusual for an opinion poll.
Those who said it does not matter are obviously not concerned one way or the other, but of the others—the over 88 per cent. who replied in a positive way in one sense or the other-56 per cent. wanted to revert in the sense of my Bill and 32 per cent. wanted to keep the present situation. Nearly twice as many want to support what I am putting forward as those who wish to retain the present system. This is a fairly strong and clear indication of the feelings of people in the country.
There were other questions in that questionnaire which related to specific 1626 categories of people. Of farmers, no fewer than 73 per cent. wanted to get rid of B.S.T. against 13 per cent. who were willing to carry on with the present situation. Parents of schoolchildren were even more positive—79 per cent. wanted to revert to the position as it was and only 14 per cent. preferred the position as it is now. That is a very large majority which I think must carry weight with hon. Members in all parts of the House.
On the overall picture, people were asked if they wanted to go back to the old system or to stay with the new system, or did they want to wait until next year to decide? In the result 58 per cent. wanted to go back to the old system, 24 per cent. wanted to retain the present system, and 16 per cent. were willing to wait for another year. So over twice as many people want to revert now as the number who want to stay with the present system and only 16 per cent. want to wait for another year. That seems a very clear indication of the strength of feeling on this matter.
There have been plenty of opinion polls. Recently one was sent to me by a correspondent in Newcastle and it gives almost precisely similar figures. This is an indication of the widespread nature of feeling on this matter. This appears to be the attitude after two winters. It is perhaps only fair to point out that the polls were slightly less hostile than the polls taken 12 months earlier. There has been a slight movement perhaps in favour of retaining the present position from the opinion in the polls immediately after the first winter, but it is very slight indeed. I therefore say in the light of this that public opinion has fastened itself and stabilised itself round about the present level —

§ Mr. Godber
The Under-Secretary may shake his head, but he is not the only authority on public opinion. I think I am entitled to put this forward as a serious point.

§ Sir Spencer Summers (Aylesbury)
Would my right hon. Friend agree that, comparatively speaking, we have had a very mild winter and the figures he has quoted from recent opinion polls might 1627 have been more dramatic if we had had, as frequently happens, a very severe winter?

§ Mr. Godber
My hon. Friend is probably right. It seemed a pretty grim winter to me, but probably that was because of having to live under this Government. Is it necessary to endure another winter of this discomfort before coming to a decision? Certainly there are no new facts to be discovered. A decision should be taken now.
If a decision is taken now it can and must be made operative before next winter. That may seem so obvious as not to need emphasis, but I am not at all sure that it is so obvious. I draw the attention of the House to an article which appeared on the front page of theSunday Mirroron 12th April. It took up the whole of the front page with the exception of a rather agreeable picture of a rather scantily clad young lady. It said: