SUMMER TIME

HC Deb 16 July 1980 vol 988 cc1685-716 12.40 am

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 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 9 July. The order will have the effect that our summer time will start one week later in 1981 and 1982. Other member States of the European Community intend to start their summer time one week earlier in 1981 and 1982, and the combined effect of these arrangements will be that all members of the EC will start summer time on the same dates in 1981 and 1982.

As the House knows, the present position is that summer time is determined by the Summer Time Act 1972. This provides that summer time normally runs from the day after the third Saturday in March until the day after the fourth Saturday in October.

Although there have been many changes in the period since we first introduced summer time in 1916, I think that summer time is now well accepted here. That is also the case in Europe. This summer, summer time is being applied by all member States of the European Community as well as by many other States in northern, central and southern Europe. But there is a difference. While summer time in the United Kingdom—and in the Irish Republic—runs this year from 16 March until 26 October, the other Community States are applying it from 6 April until 28 September.

A difference in starting and finishing dates has occurred for a number of years and these differences have caused real complications for transport undertakings and for those who have personal or commercial dealings with others in Community countries. There are at present, for example, four changes each year in the timing of transport services between the United Kingdom and France, and the additional costs for airline operators are significant.

To try to resolve these difficulties, the possibility of common starting and ending dates for summer time has been under discussion in the European Community in recent years. But, while the difference at the beginning of the summer time period between the United Kingdom and Ireland on the one hand and the seven other Community countries is usually only two weeks, the difference at the end is four or sometimes five weeks. This has meant that reaching agreement on common finishing dates has proved more difficult. We feel that the British public might be reluctant to see any substantial shortening of our summer time in October and we have not felt able to support compromise proposals for summer time to end in mid-October. The Community has, therefore, concentrated on achieving a common starting date. The Transport Council, meeting in Brussels on 24 June, agreed in principle to a draft directive which would require member States to adopt starting dates in 1981 and 1982 which are one week later than the date which would ordinarily apply in the United Kingdom and one week earlier than that adopted on the mainland of Europe. The Government welcome this as a sensible compromise but have placed a reserve on the proposal until the approval of both Houses has been obtained.

The purpose of the order before the House is to make the necessary adjustment of one week in the United Kingdom's starting date. I should emphasise again that the draft order before the House provides for a change only in starting dates, and then only in 1981 and 1982. If it is decided subsequently to make further changes for 1983 or later years, it will be necessary to bring forward either a further draft order or, possibly, amending legislation to provide for any longer-term change that might then be in view.

Even if common starting and finishing dates can be agreed, both this country and Ireland will of course remain on a different time zone, one hour behind the rest of the Community. Given the wide geographical spread of the Community, it is not practicable to create a single time zone. But at least the one hour difference would then be constant throughout the year.

Finally, I should mention that articles 2 and 3 each provide for the hour of changeover to be 1 o'clock Greenwich mean time. In other words, the clocks would go forward from 1 am GMT to 2 am summer time in March, and back from 2 am summer time to 1 am GMT in October. The usual hour of changeover time under the 1972 Act is 2 am GMT. The new hour of 1 am is proposed for March in order to ensure that summer time starts at the same moment throughout the European Community. In the absence of a common European finishing date, there is not, of course, the same necessity to provide for a new hour of changeover in October, but we think that it will be simpler to have the same hour for putting the clocks back as we have for putting them forward.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

If it is such an excellent arrangement that we have come to, that we should have a common starting date—and I am inclined to agree that it is an excellent provision—why have we to keep coming back to these orders, late at night, to change what we think is an excellent arrangement?

Mr. Raison

I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, but we felt that it was reasonable to try this for a couple of years to ensure that it was acceptable to the House and to the country as a whole. Therefore, there is a reasonable logic in what we are putting forward.

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

Can the Minister give us some justification for moving from 2 am GMT to 1 am GMT for the time as against the date of the change, both at the beginning of the summer and at the end of it? Can he give us any justification other than the fact that that is what the other members of the Community—other than the Irish—do at the moment?

Mr. Raison

No, I cannot give any other justification for that. That seems to be a perfectly sensible and sufficient justification in itself.

In conclusion, the present arangements, with summer time starting on different dates in different countries, causes confusion and inconvenience, and the Government believe that the adoption of a common starting date will bring a welcome improvement without any real loss in the advantages of summer time which we at present enjoy in the United Kingdom.

All we need now is some summer to go with summer time.

12.46 am

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

One rather feels, even at this time of night, that one should be singing one's speech to this title rather than speaking it.

However, I think that the Minister has addressed himself to the subject unduly briefly. This is the latest of many moves towards harmonisation of all sorts of things within the European Community. The beautiful name of harmonisation has acquired—rightly—a bad odour because of the excesses to which it has been taken by the European Commission. It could be argued that the order is not the worst by a very long way but is one of the excesses of harmonisation throughout the Community which have been put forward.

We should, however, remember that there would be a case for harmonisation on a matter like this whether the Community existed or not. Anybody who has frequently crossed the Channel every week or so, as I had to do the other year, knows how irritating and confusing it can be to have the difference of time, and the difference in the difference of time, at different seasons of the year. So there is no reason to attribute only to the existence of the European Community this particular manifestation of harmonisation. What we need to beware of is harmonisation for harmonisation's sake, and it is in that spirit that we should address ourselves to the order.

The text for this debate is article 100 of the Treaty of Rome. It is worth recalling the text of that article: The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, issue directives for the approximation of such provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the Common Market". I stress the last words— as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the Common Market". It is arguable on this issue, as on so many others on what harmonisation proposals have been put forward, that the legal base of article 100 of the Treaty of Rome does not exist.

There is no ground, in the interests of the existence of a Common Market, for the harmonisation of a matter such as this. There may be justification upon other grounds, but there is not actually a legal basis in the Treaty of Rome for harmonisation of this kind. If there were, then one could argue that the Commission, on the basis of article 100, would be justified, once Greece and Portugal fully enter the Community, in putting forward a proposal for a directive in favour of a common time zone throughout the whole of that enlarged Community—not a common time for the changing to summer, not a common obligation to have a summer time, but a common time zone stretching all the way from the island of Rhodes to the Azores.

The fact is that article 100 of the Treaty of Rome has been grossly abused by the Commission, and the Commission needs to be told in no uncertain terms that it is in future to stick to what article 100 says and not to stretch it. That is a point really rather separate from and independent of the argument whether we should have a common summer time changing basis. The Minister of State smiles, but there is only one reason why this proposal is before us tonight. [Interruption.] No, there is only one reason, with respect, why it is before us tonight. It is not because the Government have, as an independent issue, decided that our date of changing to summer time should be the same as that of France. It is because it has been decided as a European Community measure that this is desirable in the interests of a European Community harmonisation of policy. Therefore, it is valid to make that remark about the abuse of article 100 of the Treaty of Rome.

The Commission should be constantly reminded that the United States exists not only as a common market, not only as a free trade area, but as a total customs and economic union, despite the difference between states of a kind in the United States which would horrify the men Berlaimont. One can have a country and a customs union without that unnecessary degree of harmonisation.

We need to sound that warning now because there will come a time when the Community stretches all the way from the island of Rhodes to Portugal and when that kind of harmonisation would manifestly be unacceptable. Leav ing aside the European Community point, the difference of time between this country and France particularly causes problems. It is inconvenient. It is particularly inconvenient for the transport authorities. Therefore, if there is a case to be made for it, and if the inconvenience, the loss, to us is not significant, it certainly is most desirable to make a change.

That inconvenience, which existed for travellers, was especially the case when within the Community there were, only recently, four countries which had a summer time. So there were all sorts of unmanageable differences in the times operated by different countries.

The change made by the order that is before us affects us only as to one week. It means that we shall start our summer time one week later than we otherwise would in 1981 and in 1982, and the Continental countries will start their summer time one week earlier than they otherwise would. There will be no change in the date for going back to GMT in October, but there will be a change in the time, from 2 am to 1 am. Although the change next year and the year after will be only one week for us, it could be more. The difference between the summer time date for Britain in 1980 and that for France and the others was not two weeks; it was three weeks. If we had been harmonising in 1980, would we have harmonised by losing two weeks while the French lost one week, or vice versa? I suspect that we would have made the major change and that the French would have made the lesser change.

I use the French as an example. Until recently, in Europe, only the French and Italians had a summer time. It is therefore legitimate to regard the French as the leaders. Indeed, the French have displayed a far greater ability to get what they want from the European Community than the Foreign Office. The French understand that the essence of diplomacy is getting what one wants and making somebody else pay for it. That is a skill about which the Foreign Office has much to learn from the Quai d'Orsay. The Home Office is not in the game at all.

In so far as the change can be regarded as an energy matter, the non-insular countries of the Community will gain. They will have lighter evenings for one week in spring. The British and the Irish will have darker evenings for one week in spring. Inasmuch as there is an energy cost and gain, the British and the Irish will be the losers, and the other countries of the Community will be the gainers. On the whole, more energy is used in the evenings than in the mornings. It is universally agreed that one reason for summer time is to save energy.

I apologise because I was not in the Chamber for the Minister's first few words. However, I do not think that he addressed himself to the problem of what will happen after 1982. In 1976, when the Commission put forward its first proposal, it said that it regarded the proposed step—equivalent to the step that it now proposes—as a first step towards a more comprehensive harmonisation of summer time arrangements. The Government say that at this stage they are not prepared to compromise on the finishing time for summer time in September and October.

We want some indication tonight from the Government as to whether they are likely to sacrifice two weeks of our present summer time in the interest of harmonisation. What benefit would that bring to this country, apart from the technical benefit of harmonisation with the rest of the Community?

The Minister did not say anything about Easter. The Summer Time Act 1972 provided a definition for the changeover time to summer time. It embodied an automatic advancing of the time if the date for summer time were to fall on Easter Sunday. The country will agree that the changeover should occur not on Easter Sunday but before it. The prayer proposes to make the date later. That means that we shall run a greater risk of running up against Easter. It would be useful if the Government were to make a statement to the effect that they are not prepared to have the changeover at any time on Easter Sunday or later.

Then there is the question of the time of day that the change is effected. It is the difference between 1 am and 2 am. We in our traditional legislation adopted 2 am because that was the deadest part of the wee hours. By adopting 1 am we come into a slightly more active period—[Interruption]—yes, it is reasonably active now, but I hope that by 2 am it will be considerably less active.

The Minister of State indicated that the only reason for changing over from 2 am to 1 am is that that is what the other Europeans do. That is what has lost us an awful lot in our negotiations with the other members of the Community.

Mr. Raison

Come off it!

Mr. Cunningham

The Summer Time Act 1972, passed by a Conservative majority in the House, adopted and continued the practice that we had had previously, which was to have the time of changeover as 2 am. One either goes back from 2 am to 1 am or forward from 2 am to 3 am. The time of 2 am was not just plucked out of the air. It was chosen because it was thought to be the most sensible time.

There may be an argument for saying that 1 am is a more sensible time. But the Minister has not advanced that case at all. In reply to my intervention, he said that the only case—in his opinion sufficient in itself—for moving from 2 am to 1 am for the change was that the other countries in the EEC had chosen 1 am.

We have been in the Community now for a few years, and I should have thought that even the Home Office would have appreciated that if we are to live and survive, and survive with our pants on, in the EEC we will not do it by adopting a practice just because the others do it. Can we imagine the French sitting in the Quai d'Orsay considering this problem and saying "Well, we have to do it because the British do it." Of course not. If that habit of mind applies to a little thing, such as whether we change our time at 2 am or 1 am, it will apply to other things as well, as we know it does.

We must get across to British Ministers that that attitude of mind must change. If Ministers bring a proposal to the House to change the law in this country, they must justify it on its merits. If they say they are changing just because that is the way the French do it, we want to see whether the French do it our way because that is the way that we do it.

Mr. Lawrence

The hon. Member has conceded that there is an argument for harmonising the date. What is the point of having the same date if we have different times on the same date?

Mr. Cunningham

I shall be patient with the hon. Member at this time of the morning. It is highly desirable, if we are to harmonise, that we do so at the same time. Of course I concede that. But the Minister of State has not said that 1 am is better than 2 am and given us reasons. All he has said is that that is the way that the other countries do it. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that if the others do it at that time of day it would be silly if we did not do it at the same time of day. My God, how many hundreds of thousands of millions of pounds have we lost in the past seven years or so because of that attitude—the attitude that if the French do it by the method of the common agricultural policy if the French have sluice gate prices, and so on, it would be absurd for us not to do so.

The question is whether there is an argument on merit for making the change. No British Minister should come to the Dispatch Box and say that such action is being taken not on merit but because the others are doing it that way, and that he is not interested in whether there is a case on merit.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Scunthorpe)

In support of what the hon. Gentleman has said, when we make the change, even assuming that we do so on the same day as the remainder of Europe, we shall still be an hour adrift. Many countries in Europe are already two hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time.

Mr. Cunningham

Yes, but that does not affect the argument. There will be differences despite this measure. There will be the differences attributable to latitude, quite apart from the differences that we are talking about. Those differences will be infinitely greater when the island of Rhodes and Portugal become part of the same community. However, that is not an argument against removing those differences which are eradicable without inconvenience.

We must look at the matter on its merits, and not simply on the basis of harmonisation. When British Ministers are up against the others in the Community, they should ask why 1 o'clock is better than 2 o'clock. They should not say, "Well, we will come round to 2 o'clock because that is the way that you do it." It is a serious matter, although the Minister may dismiss it in this light manner.

Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North)

The reason for the change from 2 o'clock to 1 o'clock may not be substantial, but there is an argument for having the same time as most other countries in Europe. If it makes him so angry, will the hon. Gentleman explain what we shall lose by making the change?

Mr. Cunningham

Gladly. It is useful to have the discussion in the presence of the Minister, who seemed to feel that the merits did not apply to the matter. If we have the change at 2 o'clock, we are talking of changes operating at 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock or 1 o'clock by operating time in spring or in October. If we change at 1 o'clock, we are talking of changes at 12 o'clock, 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock. On the whole, more things are happening at midnight than at 1 am. That applies to the operation of transport systems, and so on. Why do hon. Members believe that we adopted the time of 2 am? A civil servant in the Home Office did not merely pick a number out of a hat. Two o'clock was thought to be the most dead and least active time in the 24 hours. The question is whether 1 o'clock is any less dead and less active.

I am not saying that the change is the most important thing in the world. It is very much not. The question is whether we have Ministers who say "Oh, well, the others do it at 1 o'clock, so we had better fall into line with 1 o'clock", or "We consider that 2 o'clock is better than 1 o'clock, and why do you not come over to 2 o'clock?" There has to be give and take. That is the nature of life. It should not, however, always be give and give and give. Too often in the Community that is the way it is.

I am not saying that 1 o'clock is unacceptable, but it is unacceptable for the Minister to say, when I ask why it is to be 1 o'clock instead of 2 o'clock, that it is a good and sufficient reason in itself that the others change at 1 o'clock. If we behave that way in the Common Market, we shall have every thread pulled out of our trousers and will come out of every negotiation with no trousers on at all.

Mr. Raison

The hon. Gentleman is being rather ridiculous. On the major point at issue, the other seven members of the Common Market made a concession of one week and we made a concession of one week. We arrived at a satisfactory conclusion. Both sides compromised, which shows that we did not enter the negotiations in the spirit that the hon. Gentleman tried to imply.

Mr. Cunningham

With respect to the date in 1981 and 1982, both sides gave a week. It may be two weeks in our case in later years, but there was an equal exchange on 1981 and 1982. However, that is not the case on time. When I ask for reasons I expect to be given reasons and not merely a statement that the others do it in a different way.

The House should keep a close eye on the whole business of harmonisation to ensure both that harmonisation does not take place unnecessarily and without benefit to this country and that where harmonisation is a good thing in itself, when we give an inch, we get an inch in return. It seems from the Minister's remarks that that has not taken place so far, and I hope that a different attitude will manifest itself in Ministers' approach in future.

1.12 am

Mr. Iain Mills (Meriden)

I should like to make a few points of substance after the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) which seemed to come into the category of what is known in Committee as a wide-ranging speech covering points that had little relevance to the words of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who made several substantial points about the advantage of the scheme.

My attention was drawn to summer time a few months ago by a constituent who set me thinking by asking how much the present summer time system is costing the country. She suggested that we might abolish the summer time change entirely, but I did not then, and I do not now, believe that we can do that, as the whole principle of the extra summer time is valuable during certain times of the year. I asked the Home Office to estimate the cost of implementing the 1972 Act and was disappointed when I was informed that that was impossible. We do not know how much it is costing us.

I believe that the measures involve costs to the public purse, private companies and individuals, particularly those involved in transport undertakings. Any steps to remedy the fact that we are out of step with Europe on time and to move eventually towards common European time are welcome and I welcome the order as a first step towards common European time.

Mr. George Cunningham

Common time from the island of Rhodes to Portugal? Is the hon. Gentleman serious?

Mr. Mills

Yes. There may be parts of the nether empire of the European Communities where, for geographic reasons, that may be difficult, but I should like to explain why I regard this as the first of what I hope will be a number of steps.

Mr. Alan Clark (Plymouth, Sutton)

A common currency?

Mr. Mills

I ask hon. Members not to make ridiculous interventions. We are not talking about currency. We are talking about a substantial and important method of improving transport undertakings, which will allow this country to benefit from exports and our business efforts to improve sales. It has nothing to do with currency or any other aspects of the EEC.

Mr. Clark

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mills

No. If my hon. Friend will have the courtesy to allow me to finish my paragraph, I shall gladly give way to him.

I see the order as an indication that the Government have realised the significance of moving into closer phase with some, if not all, of our EEC partners. However one feels about the EEC, there is no doubt that a time schedule with different changes and different times from other countries creates difficulties for some of our inhabitants, and particularly for our transport undertakings.

Those who travel regularly have to adjust to the hour's difference, plus the differences caused by the different dates of changes, when travelling, and when booking for aeroplanes, trains and cross-Channel ferries. The constant change of schedules involves business people and transport operations in continual rescheduling, and involves travel firms and freight companies in considerable complexity, in constant alterations to travel brochures and such items as the ABC guide to airline travel and many other complex and expensive publications.

Mr. Clark

I apologise for the rather hectoring manner that I may have adopted earlier. If the purpose of harmonisation is to go further than the simple business of railway timetables, which surely it cannot be beyond the power of human intellectual facility to cope with in their present condition, and is to harmonise business arrangements, would not my hon. Friend accept that the European Community tends to start at 8 am, whereas we tend to start at 10 am, and that most of the Community nations take their siesta at noon, whereas we tend to repair for lunch at 2 pm? Consequently, it would be much more effective for business harmonisation were we to be running two hours behind.

Mr. Mills

I shall always give way to my hon. Friend's knowledge of siestas and times of lunch. However, in this matter I offer my own experience, that of one who travelled for four years almost constantly to various parts of the globe, and particularly to Europe. On the basis of one man's experience of this complexity, I can assure my hon. Friend that for those of us who have travelled, trying to sell British goods, it is indeed a complex and difficult subject.

I managed to get to the odd German factory at 7 am, when it started, but I started at my own factory in Birmingham, near my constituency, at 8.30 am, and not at 10 am—an hour at which my hon. Friend might care to join me at some time in the future.

I finish my contribution to this fascinating debate by saying that I genuinely do not believe that the order, or any future changes, which have not been suggested at this stage by the Government, will detract from our own ability and the importance of being British, and having our own unique style. However, it will make life much easier for many of our business men, our businesses, and particularly those many transport undertakings that have the job of getting our exports to overseas territories on time, with the least complexity and at the least cost.

1.18 am

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I shall not follow up the points made by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who I think was advocating a common EEC time. That is not the question before the House. The hon. Gentleman perhaps forgets that for every 15° of longitude there is an hour's difference in sun time. Although it may be difficult for his colleagues and for people involved in international travel and export, the difference in daylight, and the inconvenience for the vast majority of the population, of any such proposal would far outweigh the advantages for a tiny number of persons, who, despite what the hon. Gentleman says, are relatively well provided for in most respects anyway.

I was surprised by the brevity of the Minister's introduction to the matter, which, while not complex, gives rise to constant misunderstandings. Anyone wishing to examine the problem who searches the Minister's speech will not find a great deal of enlightenment. Indeed, I am not sure whether we shall change from four changes, which is the present position, to two, or whether it be three. I suspect that it is two, because that is the provision in the draft directive.

The matter of compromise is the date of 29 March 1981. That was a compromise between ourselves and the French. I agree that clearly there is a case for some form of harmonisation, not necessarily of time as such but of the dates and times at which one changes from summer time back to normal time. To do that twice in a year over the whole of the Continent might be advantageous. That, of course, is different from the various time zones. One must take the two together.

This directive is related to the EEC, but it is generally forgotten that Central European time and Eastern European time, and, indeed, what I might call the time change club, extend to countries which are not members of the EEC. For instance, the time of change already in existence has been agreed by Norway, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Sweden and Hungary. They are not EEC members, but they have already agreed to change their times at the same time as some of the other members of the EEC, though not ourselves.

To make things more complex, but also to put the matter into more realistic perspective, Greece has Moscow time during the summer and Switzerland, to which some business men travel and with which some business men have connections by telephone, does not have summer time at all. So, the great advantages, boons and blessings which we are expected to derive from this directive are perhaps not quite so universal as might be supposed.

My next point is one of considerable substance. It concerns the matter of consultation. I have here an extract from British Rail's Continental timetable for 1980–81 in which the dates for the change of British summer time and Greenwich mean time are set out. The date given is 21 March. I presume that the airline timetables which are also printed contain similar indications. On some of the timetables local times are also printed.

The proposal before us is to make the change not in 1982 but next year. I ask the Minister of State what consultations he has had with the airline associations and with British Rail or other organisations which have already printed their timetables. People who consult those timetables might well be inclined to think that they are accurate.

Does not the Minister think that the notice of time in this order is much too short? Irrespective of the merits of this proposal, is it not unfair to ask for it to be imposed in the next calendar year? Would it not be better to do that in 1982? I hope that the Minister will reply to that question, and I trust that consultations of the kind I have mentioned have been made. I think that he should tell us what answers he has received.

My next point concerns the order itself. I make no apology to the House for dealing with the explanatory note. Almost every statutory instrument in pursuit of some form or other of EEC legislation has an entirely inadequate explanatory note. From reading this explanatory note, one gets no idea at all that the draft statutory instrument is in pursuit of a directive.

Some of our statutory instruments contain some mumbo-jumbo about the European Communities Act, section 2(1), and so on. That at least gives one an indication about the source of the authority. Being "pursuant to a directive" gives no such indication. The Government are being less than frank in the way in which the explanatory note is drafted. The explanatory note is lamentably short. It is four-and-a-half lines, which is even shorter than the Minister's introduction to the subject.

I turn to the draft directive which has been put in the Vote Office and is un-characteristically brief. There is no date or origin of this Informal Draft Council Directive on Summer Time Arrangements. Its title means that it is not yet a directive. It contains neither date nor town. We are entitled to know the status of an informal draft directive from which stems a definite and well printed draft statutory instrument which contains the words "Buckingham Palace".

Can an inadequate, duplicated piece of paper, with no date but headed "ER"—which I presume means "Elizabeth Regina"—and which purports to be an informal draft Council directive, move the Government to introduce a draft statutory instrument with all the usual paraphernalia about the Privy Council? Is that the state to which the House is now reduced? We have the equivalent of an office boy's note from Brussels which has resulted in a draft statutory instrument. The Minister owes us an explanation.

Why the hurry? The original statutory instrument, which is also available, is dated 3 February 1976. The proper draft directive clearly is what is known in the jargon as a "slow moving document." It is out of date, but why put the clock forward so quickly? What is the hurry? Is the order part of some package deal to ease the hopeless position on fish, or whatever is in the mind of the Foreign Office? We must have an explanation. If there is no quid pro quo expected by the Foreign Office, perhaps the instrument should be withdrawn.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)

What will happen if we approve the order and the other Governments do not fall into line? Will we be stuck with it while they continue with their old arrangements?

Mr. Spearing

That is a good point. We could be high and dry, whether it is 1 am or 2 am. I wonder whether the other national legislatures or authorities have taken notice of this piece of paper. Perhaps they do not regard the office boy's note from Brussels in such a serious light. Does the Minister's opposite number in Paris contemplate introducing a similar measure in the National Assembly? If he does not, we are wasting our time.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

We are anyway.

Mr. Spearing

We may be wasting it in any event. The Government will have wasted the time of their supporters, who wish to enact this important piece of proposed legislation. Surely it would be a bad thing if it transpired that it was not being done in other national capitals.

Apart from the article 100 argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) mentioned at the beginning of his speech, I suggest that the EEC is not the best circle in which to decide matters of this sort. I have read to the House the countries that are concerned in the existing time change club. Many of them are not members of the EEC. If we are to embark on this harmonisation, why should we not do it in consultation with Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Austria? Surely they are as eligible to be members of the time change agreement as any member of the EEC.

This is an international item that is best dealt with on its merits by an international organisation established for the purpose, or where the States concerned can get together to discuss what should be done. It may be that Switzerland, which is not a member of the EEC, will decide that it is a good idea to introduce its own form of summer time so that it can march in line with everybody else. That cannot be done under the aegis of the EEC. Whatever the merits and despite the snags that I have suggested, the Minister should be frank about the difficulties. Even if they are overcome, which I very much doubt, this is not the proper business of the so-called EEC.

1.32 am

Mr. Selwyn Gummer (Eye)

I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It reminded me of the days long ago when at a late hour we discussed the unification of the United Reformed Church, when the same hon. Member sought to discuss with the House the same reasons for not achieving what is an obvious, sensible and widely accepted change which the majority regard as sensible. Only those who find it imposible to discuss anything about the Common Market without finding some reason to object want to keep us all here tonight.

The hon. Gentleman complained that there was a short informal draft directive, a short statutory instrument, and that my hon. Friend the Minister of State made a short speech. This is a short and easy matter to decide. It does not require all the detailed points that have been raised.

We have given away one week and others have done likewise. We have come to a compromise. There is nothing wrong with a compromise. We accept that we should not compromise on issues which lead to major differences for ourselves, which are expensive or which are unhelpful to ourselves.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) did not do himself justice. There are issues on which the Government and the people must take a stand. In the past year the Government have shown a great deal more ability to get what Britain needs in the Common Market than the previous Labour Government revealed during their years in office. The hon. Gentleman should not criticise my right hon. and hon. Friends when during the long period that the previous Labour Government were in power they were unable to win anything for Britain in the European Community. He demeans himself when he advances the argument that Britain will compromise on everything as long as others do exactly what we want them to do. That is the argument that he has advanced, and it is the argument that some of my hon. Friends below the Gangway are putting so hilariously.

Mr. Spearing

The hon. Gentleman must not say things that are untrue. He will see in the Hansard report of this debate that I am wholly in favour of some international agreement on the harmonisation of changing to and from summer time. The burden of my speech was, first, that the EEC is not a suitable institution to do that and, second, that the documents before us are inadequate.

Mr. Gummer

The hon. Gentleman is in favour of making the change, but because it is made under the aegis of the EEC he regards it as an unsuitable change to make. That is what he is saying. We knew before he rose to speak that that was what he would say.

The task before us is to decide whether the change is worthwhile on its merits, not whether it should be done in or out of the EEC. Is it a useful change to make? It seems that it would be useful if the major trading group in the world with which we carried on nearly half our export trade changed at the same time. That seems not unreasonable on the face of it, and there would have to be a pretty good case against it to justify not making the change.

The second problem concerns the one hour difference. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury made a great deal about this aspect. He suggested that 2 o'clock was the ideal time because that was the deadest time of the night. I can think of some much deader times. We are often here at 2 o'clock. We are less frequently here at 3 o'clock, and we are hardly ever here at 4 o'clock. If he wants the deadest time of the night, I suggest 4 o'clock. Perhaps he wants us to say we shall have neither 1 o'clock nor 2 o'clock but that we shall go for 4 o'clock because that is different from everyone else.

When we seek to compromise over great matters such as multilateral disarmament between nations so diverse as ourselves and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, are we to say that we cannot come to a tiny agreement of this kind without a major, long-winded debate at this time of night by people who do not want the change not because it is not good, but because it is passed by the EEC?

Mr. George Cunningham

The hon. Gentleman is making much more of my objection than it deserves. My objection was to argue something on the merits only to indicate that on the surface it seems that 2 o'clock is better than 1 o'clock. My objection was basically that in reply to my intervention the Minister said that the case for our moving to 1 o'clock was that the others did it. I say that that is not an adequate reason in itself, and that in every Common Market matter we may compromise to their ways, they may compromise to ours, and we may find something in between. But in every case that must be done upon some discussion of the merits. The British must not always be saying "We will do it their way because that is the way they do it." That is not the attitude of the French, and it should not become the attitude of the British.

Mr. Gummer

I hope that we shall not adopt the attitude proposed by the hon. Gentleman. I feel that there is not sufficient difference between changing at 1 o'clock or at 2 o'clock to justify making a great fuss about it. As a number of the other countries do it that way, it seems to be a practice upon which we can legitimately compromise. I want to be much tougher on the issues that really matter.

The basic issue before the House tonight is whether we can discuss matters on their merits without constantly arguing about the EEC. Let us argue issues on their merits. This is a perfectly reasonable compromise on which, if the letters "EEC" had not been attached to it, most hon. Members here now complaining would not have bothered to do so. We can make the change because it is sensible. Let us do it. We shall find that the Swiss, who are not in the EEC, will follow very soon because we have set the example. Cannot we set it and solve the problem without drawing the great dudgeon of high heaven upon us, as the hon. Member for Newham, South and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury have suggested?

1.38 am

Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes)

I support the order, but wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for reassurance on one point and to answer a question.

The point of reassurance relates to the power of any regional Assemblies that may one of these days raise an ugly head in the United Kingdom. The Labour Government planned to delegate these powers of choosing summer time to Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure us that there will be no plans for the delegation of the powers if ever such Assembles are formed.

My question relates to the consultations my hon. Friend has had with other members of the EEC on the advantages of having double summer time in the summer and single summer time all the year round. That may strike a bell with some hon. Members who remember that that was adopted during the war years.

In questions to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy on 27 July 1979, I was told that if double summer time was adopted from April to October there would be saving in fuel used for electricity generation of about 250,000 tonnes of coal or 150,000 tonnes of heavy oil."—[Official Report, 27 July 1979; Vol. 971, c. 578.] That is the equivalent of about 40 million gallons of petrol which, at retail prices, costs about £56 million. No one should quibble at that amount of money. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure us that he has investigated that question thoroughly with other members of the EEC, and has come to some conclusion, to which we are not yet privy, about why double summer time during the summer and single summer time throughout the year has not been decided upon throughout the European Community.

1.40 am

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Scunthorpe)

I wish to follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer), who asked whether it would be possible to agree to this sensible compromise and forget that it was instigated by that nasty institution, the Common Market. We cannot let matters pass in an easy compromise. I have the report of the Transport Council, the body responsible for bringing forward the proposal instituted in the order. It says: Such differences considerably complicate the work of transport companies in intra-Community relations. Therefore the Commission proposes a directive providing that in 1981 and 1982 summer time will be introduced. Let us make no bones about it; the only reason why my hon. Friend the Minister is bringing forward the order is in response to a directive from the EEC.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Will my hon. Friend indicate how many representations he has received from major transport undertakings about the matter? I know that he has a number of such companies in his constituency, as I have in mine. I am happy to say that I have not received a single representation pressing for this change.

Mr. Brown

I have not received any representations from transport undertakings. But I have received representations from the agricultural community, where daylight is at an absolute premium. That brings me to a point which, although not the subject of the order, will be the subject of another order probably to be brought before the House at some future date. The Transport Council document says: the Commission proposed 11 October for 1980 and 10 October for 1982 to return to Greenwich mean time in the United Kingdom. It continues: but there are still differences of opinion between continental States … The Commission will insist on this question being settled and will later make a proposal for the 1983 calendar. That will be a sinister proposal because it will involve Britain losing one hour of daylight at the end of the period when we return from British summer time to Greenwich mean time. I and a number of my colleagues represent agricultural communities. We should be concerned that the order is merely the prelude to an order in response to an insistence from the Common Market at some future date. We should take the matter seriously.

My hon. Friends below the Gangway are deeply concerned that it is the thin end of the wedge. It may not be a major proposal for Britain, and only a minor proposal for the EEC, but it is a symptom of a general malaise. We can talk in light-hearted terms about changing clocks. I happen to believe that it is rather quaint that for a few weeks in the year, around the middle of March, one can leave Brussels or Paris and arrive in the United Kingdom an hour before one started one's journey. I think that that answers the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). His argument cuts both ways.

The point at issue, in my view, is the sinister events which will take place behind this order, when at some stage in the future the Minister will have to give way on a much worse compromise when it comes to returning from British summer time to Greenwich mean time at the end of the year. I hope that he will speculate on that, although I do not know whether he will be in order in doing so. It is something of which we should beware.

1.45 am

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

I want to raise with the Minister a simple question of fact. Has the EEC directive on which this order is based been approved by the EEC Council, or is it still a draft directive? If it is still a draft directive, why do we need to have an order based on it brought before the House before it has even been approved by the Council of the EEC?

1.46 am

Mr. Roger Moate (Faversham)

My hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) suggested that this was a matter of controversy only because it concerned a document produced by the EEC. In saying that, I think that he was revealing that he has a very short memory indeed, as well as coming to some wrong judgments on matters of this kind. If he casts his mind back, he will remember our debates in the early 1970s on the question of British summer time—which had nothing whatever to do with the Common Market—which gave rise to some of the most controversial and highly emotive debates that we have ever had. If my hon. Friend looks at those debates, he will discover just how much controversy they raised. The reason is that the British people value those extra hours of daylight which the British summer time arrangements have given them in the past. They have valued them in the past. This House has protected those arrangements, and it is right that it should be jealous of those arrangements for the future.

The importance of the documents before us tonight lies not just in the fact that we shall lose a week of British summer time, but also in the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown). He referred to the report in Agence Europe of the transport meeting, which talked about the Council insistence—we must note that word—upon harmonisation when what is at stake is an extra month of British summer time in the autumn. That is a matter of some significance. It is absolutely right that the House should be considering it tonight. I believe that the Minister owes the House an explanation in his reply about the Government's long-term intention about this matter.

It seems to me that the most apt comment on this matter was contained in a report in The Guardian, dated 11 June, when, after the announcement had been, made, it said: Possibly basking in the idea of infinite bureaucratic summer time, a Home Office spokesman said that the announcement was part of the EEC's policy of 'bringing everyone into line, not only with trading but with symbols and seasons'.". I cannot vouch for the accuracy of The Guardian article, but if the Home Office really believes that the EEC can wave its wand, pass directives and organise our seasons, I suspect that the Euro idea has got somewhat out of hand. It seems to me that this is a classic case of harmonisation for harmonisation's sake.

My hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench said "Hear, hear", when it was suggested that this would contribute to removing some of the difficulties with regard to intro-Community trade. If that is their objective, frankly they are putting forward the proposals in an extraordinarily illogical way. As has been made clear, they are certainly not harmonising time. Despite the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and Eye, they are not managing to create one time zone across Europe, which would allow the Greeks to go to bed in the daylight and the Spaniards to pick their oranges in the middle of the night. There will be a variety of time zones, and nothing can change that.

Mr. George Cunningham

They will stop the sun by directive.

Mr. Moate

Perhaps.

If harmonisation is the objective, to make life easier for travellers and transport organisations, why are we harmonising only at the beginning of the year and not at the end of the year too? This document does not harmonise. I say that it should not, but I do not believe that my hon. Friends can argue that this is being put forward for the convenience of road haulage organisations or railway time tables when, at the end of the period, we are saying positively that we shall maintain British summer time for one month longer than the rest of Europe. Or is my hon. Friend saying that we shall harmonise there too, and we shall lose an extra month in 1983, in accordance with the Community's insistence?

The case for harmonisation for the sake of efficiency does not stand up. There is a case, where it can possibly be organised, for changing times at the same time as other nations. But that does not apply only to the European Community. It certainly applies to many other countries in Europe and in the world, if that can possibly be done. Is it not extraordinary that this House has put itself in this position, when we are discussing this order as a result of a directive—

Mr. George Cunningham

Not even a directive.

Mr. Moate

—as a result of a directive, because if we have not got one yet, it is clear that we shall have one? If we do not pass this order, perhaps we shall be in breach of the Treaty of Rome and be summoned before the European Court for failing to accept this edict.

It is the height of folly to have put ourselves into this position on such a matter. It would be much more sensible if we were able to arrive at decisions of this kind in conformity with our many partners and produce common sense policies, and not as a result of an extraordinary directive. Heaven knows how much ministerial time has been wasted on this type of exercise in Brussels. I feel that this is a bureaucratic exercise. It is unnecessary. I do not think it contributes to the efficiency which my hon. Friends rightly seek. It worries me that we could lose that extra British summer time in the autumn, and for that reason I am very much inclined to vote against the order.

1.53 am

Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

I wish to speak for only a minute because I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) is seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I look forward to hearing his contribution. I remember his speech on the last occasion we debated this matter, some years ago. No doubt he will prove to be consistent in his approach.

I take up a point made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) who spoke of the energy costs involved in this proposal. As I understood him, he made the point that we should be losers in this country—and presumably Ireland—and that the Continental members of the Common Market would be the gainers. Can my hon. Friend, in replying, say whether that is the case? To what extent shall we be losers and the Continental members gainers?

1.54 am

Mr. Paul Hawkins (Norfolk, South-West)

I wish only to point out to Labour Members who spoke at such length about other countries except the EEC that the Council of Europe, which represents 21 nations, from Iceland to Turkey and from Turkey to Portugal, has been trying to press this sort of proposal with the 21 nations for a number of years and would welcome the first step from the EEC, thus getting a proportion of those countries on to what I consider to be the right lines for an up-to-date country. Some of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench below the Gangway are troglodytes, completely out of touch with the present situation in this country. Our banks open at 9.30 a.m. In Germany the banks open at 8.30 a.m. That is why they do better business.

The ludicrous nature of the present situation is apparent to anyone who has to travel to and from Europe and who knows how he must alter his travel arrangements because of the difference in time. Business men try to telephone their European opposite numbers in the morning and find that they cannot get through because our European friends have gone to lunch.

This country has got to be dragged into this century. We are far behind at present. This is one little instance of the way in which some Members of this House are far behind.

1.56 am

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

In a debate like this at this time of the night the House of Commons really becomes alive as a House of Commons. Tonight the Minister came to the House with a Home Office brief and gave us absolutely no explanation. It is not lightly that I say that the Opposition have done us a service by highlighting the important matters that lie behind the order.

I am ashamed of the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister of State did not justify the order he is asking the House to approve. I say this openly. The longer I remain in the House the greater my regret that I voted for Britain's entry into the European Economic Community. I believe in the philosophy that if the Community is enlarged it will bust. The sooner that happens, the better. My very sincere and hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) made his speech tonight with the Brussels blinkers right over his eyes. He told us absolutely nothing that is relevant to the order. It is time that the House stood up for the traditions and the customs of this country. We are allowing the sea of Europe to wash over us and to change our customs.

How right my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) was. Not so long ago we had a debate in the House on the question of summer time. It was a very emotional debate. The people of this country felt very strongly about it. Is it because it is now 1.57 am that the Government, having introduced this order, expect it to go through because there are no representatives of the press here to report what is going on and that the citizens will accept what we have done in their name?

There is no doubt that we are being pressed into doing something which it is not in our best interests to do. The Minister did not deal at all adequately with the question of the increased energy costs. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), who was, I gather, very emotive on a previous occasion relating to the importance of summer time, appears to have changed his tune altogether and has gone back on what he said. He was obviously a reactionary in those days—a troglodyte, as he has described those of us below the Gangway. I do not believe that we are troglodytes. I believe that we are standing up for the best interests of this country. If we are talking now only about what happens at the beginning of summer time, it is very sinister that reference should be made to what is to happen at the end. However, the Minister has made no mention of that.

It is very important for us to ensure, regarding the end of the summer time period, that we maintain our custom of not going back to Greenwich mean time until the end of October.

If the Minister thinks that he will get a smooth ride tonight and that there will be no Division at the end of it, I tell him that those of us who believe the order to be faulty may not win but we ask him this question: does he intend to justify the status of the order, bearing in mind that it is based only on a draft directive? The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) rightly described it as an office boy's note. It is ridiculous that this House should sit for an hour and a half late at night, after an important debate on the Finance Bill, to debate something based on a draft order from a Brussels bureaucrat. The House is doing itself no honour and no service at all and is certainly not acting to the advantage of the British people.

2.1 am

Mr. Raison

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I do not think that this has been a great House of Commons occasion, but it has been a spirited debate and has given a certain amount of innocent pleasure. It must have been rather like the debates which took place in the eighteenth century, when the calendar was changed and the great cry of "Give us back our 11 days" was heard in the land. The troglodytes were probably more active then than they have been tonight.

Perhaps I should first apologise for the brevity of my opening remarks, for which I have been criticised by several hon. Members. My brevity, I confess, was due partly to a feeling that we had been discussing the Finance Bill at some length and some hon. Members seemed not to want to have to stay here too long, but more than that it was fundamentally due to the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) pointed out, the reasons for these proposals are very simple and there is not a great deal to say about them.

Common sense stands out absolutely clearly in favour of the order. It is based on a compromise in which seven other European countries have surrendered one week and we have surrendered one week, together with Ireland. The result is something that should be wholly acceptable. It is clearly advantageous to the very large number of people who travel across the Channel; it is advantageous to the industries that serve them. It has the full support of British Rail and of the airlines. In practical terms, therefore, the advantages of what we are putting forward are very strong.

To be fair to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), he acknowledged that the advantages were there. He may have nit-picked, if I may use that phrase, about a number of things, but I think I am correct in understanding that he was perfectly happy about the order.

I gently suggest that any hon. Members who are doubtful about the EEC provenance, and who feel concerned that the Common Market should be looming in the background, might like to look at the order and console themselves. Rather than grumble about the fact that there is nothing about the Common Market in the order, they should say "Here we have a rather sensible order which will be to the benefit of quite a large number of people; therefore, let us pass it this evening". That would seem to be the easy way out for those who could not ever bring themselves to support any matter that has ostensibly anything to do with the Common Market. They should look at the order and ask "Do we think that this is a sensible order?" If they do, they should vote for it. The overwhelming majority of hon. Members would then be in a position to support the order.

Mr. Jay

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Raison

I think I ought to answer the debate. I shall be coming to the right hon. Gentleman's point.

We have had a lot of talk about harmonisation. I have never been a fanatic for harmonisation for harmonisation's sake, nor have Her Majesty's Government. That has never been our position. But if harmonisation produces a clear and obvious benefit, there is virtue in harmonisation. That essentially is what this is all about.

I find it rather improbable, in a way, that we should not be merely, as it were, implementing a draft directive. People have been grumbling about the fact that all there is at the present time is a draft directive. I should have thought that those people who have argued so long and so eloquently that the House of Commons has had to surrender power to the European Commission would be rather pleased about the fact that what we have here is a draft directive. It is not yet a directive.

The House has an opportunity to express its view about the measure without any great complications. My hon. Friends should welcome that. If the House is foolish enough to chuck out the order, the changes will not be made. That will be a pity, because the draft directive is remarkably sensible. It does not become those who have fought this battle over the years to grumble that the EEC has produced a draft directive.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) asked what would happen if devolution took place. He asked whether the devolved Assemblies would have the power to produce their own summer time regulations. I confess that I had not given one moment's thought to that before the debate. I hope that I am not stepping out of line when I say that I believe that there is no prospect of devolved Assemblies. The party has made its view clear. That worry should not keep my hon. Friend awake, if and when he eventually gets to bed. There is no ground for that concern.

It has been asked whether we should have double summer time. Other similar points have been raised. They are interesting points, and they are debated from time to time. However, they do not arise from the debate. I remind hon. Members that there was a major national debate in the 1970s on this issue. There was a great deal of controversy in my constituency, and I am sure that that applied to all constituencies at the time. The House made a decision, and did so with a large majority. Nobody could argue that we are trying to undermine that decision.

Some of my hon. Friends think that sinister events are involved, and they have presented the debate as a dark evening in the history of our constitution. They have implied that the Government are paving the way for terrible events. My hon. Friends may have enjoyed their rhetoric, and we enjoyed listening to it. However, it has been the rhetoric of fantasy rather than of reality.

The point about October is fair. We have not come to an agreement and we have not made up our minds, because we know that there are considerable drawbacks to surrendering a period of summer time in October. We sought to give the House a chance to assert its views. We have not tried to steamroller the provision in the wake of a directive. We have brought a draft directive before the House. We have not made up our minds. We want to know what hon. Members think. It is important. However, I beg my hon. Friends to remember that the Common Market generally likes to negotiate. It does not like to steamroller. It is not in the business of doing that. When we have listened to hon. Members and to

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Summer Time

the public, we shall decide whether there is scope for a further compromise agreement. At present we have not made up our minds. We have nothing to put to the House this evening.

Mr. Spearing

rose—

Mr. Raison

I shall not give way as I have only half a minute in which to speak. We are talking about a simple, sensible proposal.

Mr. Spearing

Two or three changes? Answer that.

Mr. Raison

If hon. Members would concentrate on what the prayer—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 13.

Division No. 409]	AYES	[2.09 am
Alexander, Richard	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman	Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Ancram, Michael	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Penhaligon, David
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Gummer, John Selwyn	Raison, Timothy
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Hawkins, Paul	Rathbone, Tim
Be[...]y, Hon Anthony	Heddle, John	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Best, Keith	Henderson, Barry	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Biggs-Davison, John	Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Blackburn, John	Hunt, David (Wirral)	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Hum, John (Ravensbourne)	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Bowden, Andrew	Lawrence, Ivan	Sims, Roger
Bright, Graham	Le Merchant, Spencer	Speed, Keith
Brinton, Tim	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Brooke, Hon Peter	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Stevens, Martin
Bulmer, Esmond	Lyell, Nicholas	Stradling Thomas, J.
Butcher, John	MacGregor, John	Temple-Morris, Peter
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Major, John	Viggers, Peter
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Mather, Carol	Wakeham, John
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)	Mayhew, Patrick	Waller, Gary
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Ward, John
Colvin, Michael	Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Cope, John	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Wickenden, Keith
Cranborne, Viscount	Mudd, David	Wolfson, Mark
Dorrell, Stephen	Needham, Richard
Dover, [...]enshore	Nelson, Anthony	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Newton, Tony	Mr. David Waddington and
Fairgrieve, Russell	Normanton, Tom	Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
NOES
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Hawksley, Warren	Spearing, Nigel
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Welsh, Michael
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Leighton, Ronald
Cryer, Bob	Moate, Roger	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
English, Michael	Shearman, Barry	Mr. Nicholas Winterton and
Farr, John		Mr. Richard Body.

Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 9th July.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.