HC Deb 29 November 1984 vol 68 cc1182-8

10.1 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8175/84, Proposal for a Third Council Directive on Summer Time Arrangements, and, while recognising the reasons for the proposal, urges Her Majesty's Government to press for the retention of the existing arrangements.

The proposals contained in the Council document referred to are briefly these: that, for the next three years, the Community should retain its common starting date for summer time of the last Sunday in March, except where that day coincides with Easter Sunday, when it should be on the previous Sunday, and also that all member states should end summer time on a common date of the second Sunday in October.

Hon. Members will recall that it was agreed in 1979 under the first summer time directive that continental member states would advance their starting date by one week, and that we and the Republic of Ireland would delay ours by one week, in order to achieve a common date throughout the Community. That arrangement was thought by the Government to be a reasonable one, and it appears to have worked well in practice. In these circumstances, there would not appear to be any reason why the general principle of starting summer time on the last Sunday in March should not again be agreed. I hope that I take the House with me on that point.

The question of bringing the starting date forward by one week to avoid Easter Day is slightly more difficult. Frankly, none of our European partners seems to find any difficulty in keeping the starting date permanently on the last Sunday in March even where it coincides with Easter, and, indeed, on the continent it appears to have been regarded as more important not to move away from a starting date which is common, not only to the Community but to practically all continental European states, both east and west. This argument particularly applies to the principal Community transit countries, Austria, Switzerland and Yugoslavia, since unlike the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland they share common land borders with the continental member states, and dislocation through not having a common changeover date would be significant.

We do not see any particular difficulty in agreeing to start summer time on Easter Day in 1986, given that the changeover will be widely publicised in advance, and those principally concerned—such as churchgoers—will be fully aware of when the clocks go forward. However, as we have no recent experience in this country of the start of summer time coinciding with Easter Day, and as the third directive is only intended to cover the next three years, we shall have ample time for seeking amendment after 1988, should this prove necessary.

The Commission has suggested a compromise with a common ending date on the second Sunday in October, approximately mid-way between the continental ending date of the last Sunday in September and our own at the end of October.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)

Too early.

Mr. Mellor

I am glad to hear my perceptive colleague say that that is too early, because that is precisely the point I want to endorse.

Putting to one side for a moment the implications of this proposal for the United Kingdom, I have to report that continental member states have indicated that they are reluctant to move away from the present ending date which is aligned with that of adjoining non-member states with which they have common land frontiers.

I come now to our own interests, which are foremost in my mind. We have relied upon a number of factors in reaching our decision. We appreciate that a common ending date would have a number of advantages for some international travel, business and commercial interests, but, and we think in the end these carry more weight, we are aware that strong feelings are held in some quarters, notably in agriculture, construction and domestic tourism, as well as by members of the public who value light evenings in October for recreational and leisure purposes and who are against any substantial shortening of our present summer time period.

Whilst, therefore, the Government would have been prepared to consider the Commission's compromise proposals if other member states had been prepared to do so, in the absence of such willingness we do not feel that it would represent a balanced view of opinion in this country to move our summer time ending date to the end of September, which is the only alternative means by which harmonisation of the ending date could readily be achieved at present.

The consensus in the relevant Council working group has been that the Commission's proposal of the second Sunday in October is unacceptable, and as a result an alternative suggestion is now expected to be made to the Council of Ministers on 11 or 12 December, under which member States would retain their existing dates for the next three years. No future commitment would be implied by agreeing to this proposal which, in the circumstances, would seem to the Government to be sensible and appropriate.

I hope that I take the House with me, when I invite both sides to agree that in the circumstances our existing dates should be maintained for the next three years at least.

10.5 pm

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

The last time that I was at the Dispatch Box at this time of night, we were discussing the withdrawal of Greenland from the European Community. Notwithstanding the fact that it is excluded from the directive, looking at it, I must say that Greenland would appear to have got out just in time. It is with some reassurance that I see that the dependent territories of member States are excluded from the directive, because it would cause some confusion in Guadalupe to have its ending of summer time brought in line with the north of Scotland.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives)

The hon. Gentleman probably has not been in Europe as long as I have. If he had, he would know that Guadalupe is part of metropolitan France. It is not a dependent territory.

Mr. Foulkes

I am sure that the hon. Member has been in Europe longer than anyone, in fact, too long. I accept his correction, but I am sure that it is equally glad to be excluded. The motion is supported by the Opposition not just in relation to the starting time but the finishing time as well. We would have gone further with the wording if we had intended to table an amendment.

The arguments in favour of what the directive puts forward are slight. We are told that business men throughout Europe will find contact between each other easier—there would be a longer coincidence of office hours. However, in the United States and Canada, where there are four or five time zones, they do not find it difficult to communicate with each other from one side of the continent to the other.

We are told that timetables for the jet setters would be easier if our clocks changed at the same time, but there are relatively few of those jet setters, as the hon. Member knows, being one of them, and they are expert timetable readers and can take account of any adjustments that occur at the beginning and end of October.

All those matters could be dealt with, if harmonisation has to come about, if it came at the end of October based on the United Kingdom date. That would be advantageous everyone because it would give more summer time for all. The arguments against are overwhelming. I shall not dwell on the argument put forward in the European Parliament by our former colleague Mr. Les Huckfield, who considers that the European proposal is a charter for rapists. It is not an argument that we would advance as being the most significant.

As the Home Office report states, there would be an effect on the construction industry. Every hour worked at that time of the year is important in terms of jobs and construction in general. We are also concerned about the effect on farmers.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)

When the hon. Gentleman talks about the construction industry, is he thinking about building a greater Europe?

Mr. Foulkes

No, I spoke in the context of building a greater Britain and of building more in Britain during periods of daylight.

We are also concerned about the tourist industry. Mr. Holmes of the Scottish Tourist Board writes to me as follows: I have checked with the British Tourist Authority who say that their view and that of the UK national tourist boards is that British Summertime should remain unchanged since at present it contributes to an extension of the tourist season.

I have also called Mr. Ian Melrose of the Scottish National Farmers' Union. The Scottish NFU is strongly opposed to the proposal. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will appreciate, much work is done on the farm during October in relation to winter sowings, work with the cattle and other preparations for winter.

Those are strong arguments. When all that has been said, the House may wonder why the Opposition were anxious to discuss the proposal—albeit briefly. First, we were concerned about a report in The Times on 24 October to the effect that the Government would abide by a decision of the European Parliament on the issue. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is not the case. I see him nodding, but I hope that he will put his view on the record.

Secondly, the change is being proposed under article 100 which—as experts on Europe will know—requires a unanimous vote of Council before it can be implemented. It is ironic that a unanimous vote is required, and that therefore there should be a veto on summer time but not on subjects such as the budgetary discipline of Europe which are—although I would not belittle the importance of summer time—infinitely more important.

As unanimity is required, we require an assurance from the Government that they will not give in to pressure in any way, or relinquish their authority in the European Parliament. We need an assurance now—as an Order in Council is required to implement this proposal in the United Kingdom and there is no further opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny—that the Government will stand firm not just for the next three years but into the foreseeable future. The farmers, the tourist industry and the construction industry—on all of which many jobs depend—seek such an assurance.

10.13 pm
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and the Border)

I am pleased that the House is so poorly attended for this debate, because that must mean that Her Majesty's Government have made the correct decision. If my hon. Friend had come to the Dispatch Box and said that we were to go along with the proposal, the House would have been packed and the debate would have lasted for the full one and a half hours.

It is true that there are problems for international travellers, but it is my experience that most airline personnel are capable of working by the 24 hour clock and of working by half a dozen different systems at the same time—Greenwich mean time, Alpha time, Zulu time or whatever it may be. There is no great hardship for such people in continuing with the present arrangements.

I do not want to waste time in a debate about time. However, there is one group of people whom I should like briefly to mention. I am thinking of the farmers. I echo the comments the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that it is vitally important for the agricultural interests that the present arrangements should be continued not just for three years but for all time—or at least until some awful climatic alteration changes the hours of darkness naturally. I should not like my hon. Friend to say that the present arrangements will continue for the next three years but that after that we shall fall into line. It is vital for agriculture that the present system continues indefinitely.

10.14 pm
Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean), I came here just to hear the announcement. My fear was aroused by the magazine Europe '82 of October 1984 which implied that we might have to conform with the rest of Europe. We are a separate country, and there is no need for us to conform. The proposed alteration is far too early. We must maintain our individuality. I am assured by what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. The word "harmonisation" always fills me with fear in regard to the European Community. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that it does not occur in this case. I am pleased to hear that the Government will keep the present arrangements in force.

10.16 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)

I might have a faulty memory, but I recall that perhaps 12 years ago, when the House discussed summer time after an experiment you, Mr. Speaker, were extremely brave and voted with a small minority against the practicalities of it. In your present neutrality you will be listening to the debate in a quite different way. My view has altered. We are wet and weak in our attitude to summer time. We should maximise our hours of daylight. If we turn our backs on Europe saying that we disagree for a special national reason on this issue, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will speak to his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science about corporal punishment as we are now adopting double standards. We are agreeing on one because it suits us and disagreeing on another.

10.17 pm
Mr. Mellor

With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). It is not every week that he comes down from Carrick, Cumnock, not to mention the Doon valley, ready to heap praise on the Government——

Mr. Foulkes

That is true.

Mr. Mellor

—for our wisdom. I am glad that on this occasion, if on no other, he is at his most perceptive. I thought that he made a good speech. I am sorry that his reputation as an orator with his colleagues went ahead of him so that not many of them were here to hear him. His speech was good and deserves an answer. We regretted press reports in October—they were utterly misleading. We never intended to agree with the proposal. We examined it on its merits, just as the Government did in 1979 and just as we shall do again in 1988. The case for doing what we recommend is clear. I dare say that it will seem equally clear cut in 1988. I cannot anticipate precisely what the circumstances will be then, but I should have thought that there would have to be a convincing change in the material factors to make us change our minds. I hope that that is the assurance which the hon. Gentleman seeks. I appreciate how important the issue is in Scotland where the consequences of change would be much graver than further south.

Mr. Foulkes

I thank the Minister for that. Let me give him the reassurance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) that we shall take the same attitude in 1988 in Government.

Mr. Mellor

I shall be interested to know what happens in 1988. Even on a subject such as British summer time, the British people do not deserve to have that decision taken either by the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock).

Mr. Forth

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reasons for the matter before the House this evening are not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) suggested, nationalist, but they can be seen in an entirely pragmatic and reasonable light? We are here making a decision which is based on common sense, pragmatism and reason. It has nothing to do with any sort of nationalist approach or divergence from the other countries of Europe, merely that we are doing what seems to us to be sensible and natural. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that.

10.22 pm
Mr. Mellor

I stand here at the Dispatch Box, as ever, as the embodiment of pragmatism and reasonableness. On that welcome note, which I see is greeted with assent on both sides, I shall quit while I am ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8175/84, Proposal for a Third Council Directive on Summer Time Arrangements, and, while recognising the reasons for the proposal, urges Her Majesty's Government to press for the retention of the existing arrangements.