HC Deb 01 December 1988 vol 142 cc936-58

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7876/88, on Summer Time arrangements; and supports the continuation of the existing arrangements for a further three years to enable the Government to consult and give careful consideration to future summer time arrangements.—[Mr. Fallon.]

7.40 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I assume that the motion has been moved and that because no hon. Member has risen to speak, and if I had not risen, there would have been no debate? I am not quite sure about the procedure at this stage. Perhaps you can enlighten us because I believe that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) wants to speak. I am not sure whether he can move his amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

I apologise to the House. I have proposed the Question rather than put it. I have not thwarted anyone's hopes of participating in a debate. I should have told the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and his hon. Friends. If the hon. Member for Southend, East is trying to catch my eye, I will call him.

7.40 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

I beg to move, to leave out from first 'arrangements' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

'but regrets the decision of Her Majesty's Government to accept that the Directive falls under Article 100A; and urges Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the issues raised by the European Scrutiny Committees of both Houses and the opinion of Mr. Speaker's Counsel as expressed in Annex B to the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation of this House before engaging in further discussions on the Directive. I apologise for the fact that I am moving the amendment rather than one of my hon. Friends because, unfortunately, we have the impression nowadays, sadly, that European matters of significance are debated only very late at night. I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this can be a bit embarrassing. I am sure that we should all be aware that Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker always maintain their very good general relations with hon. Members despite our very late hours.

Basically we are debating a simple issue of principle which affects everyone in our country. Over the years summer time has caused major debates and disagreements in the House. It relates to human safety, the lives of children and adults and we all know that if we get the date wrong, that could result in a serious loss of life. To that extent the House has torn itself apart. I remember delegations from the north of Scotland and the north-east of England pleading with the House to move in a certain direction. We know, for example, that if we make summer time in a certain way, children in the north tend to go to school in the dark. Sadly those issues have dominated the House and caused enormous controversy.

We are worried because the European Community has put forward a directive, the object of which is basically to try to ensure that the decision on summer time will be made not by the United Kingdom Parliament but by the majority vote of the Council of Ministers. I am delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), is here because he is one of the most conscientious attenders in the House. I am sure that he will be aware from our many previous discussions that, sadly, there is a whole range of issues on which the House does not make its own decisions and about which the European Community takes a decision by a majority vote. It is very sad that the average person in Britain is probably not fully aware that laws are being passed by the majority vote of the Council of Ministers and Parliament must simply abide by them.

That is only one part of a whole scene of shifting responsibility from national Parliaments to the EEC. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed concern about that in her recent important speech in Bruges.

Sovereignty is slipping away in three ways. First, there has been a huge increase in the powers of the European Court of Justice. Only recently the Government were instructed by the European Court of Justice to levy VAT on hearing aids, spectacles and new commercial and industrial buildings. That is one sign of sovereignty going away.

Secondly, sovereignty has been slipping away through the powers used by the Commission. The Commission is simply the EEC's civil servants, but it has been taking more and more power. We have seen that recently in the ban imposed on the import of all apples into the EEC without consulting excellent Ministers like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for their opinions.

Probably the most dangerous and worrying transfer of sovereignty has been through the Single European Act which, sadly. Parliament discussed on a guillotine very late on a Thursday night continuing through to Friday. As a result of that, decisions may be made in certain areas on laws to apply to all member states by a majority vote.

At the time, the Government said that they would be very careful to ensure that only those laws requiring majority vote were actually transferred. That is why the excellent Select Committee on European Legislation has looked carefully at the way in which the Commission is seeking to extend article 100A which means extending majority voting to issues which should not normally go that way. For the first time in my experience as an hon. Member for many years, I was fascinated to see in the report of the Select Committee on European Legislation the actual guidance from Mr. Speaker's counsel who stated specifically and categorically that the summer time order should not fall under article 100A. If it had stayed under article 100A, we would still have the right to say no if we did not like it.

We know that under this proposal the EEC is allowing the United Kingdom— [Interruption.] I am delighted that a Scottish Member has arrived in the Chamber. The Scottish people feel very strongly about this issue. They passionately believe that Scottish lives are threatened. Not only has the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) arrived on the Scottish Nationalist Benches, but as always —and we take this for granted—my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is present. He is protecting Scottish interests and looking after the interests of his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North should be an example to all hon. Members, with the conscientious attention that he pays to the debates in this House.

The Commission and the Council of Ministers have agreed that the United Kingdom can have three years during which it can basically go its own way on summer time. If we want to have a different date to end summer time, we can go our own way. Many of us are worried that because that is being done under article 100A, after the three years the EEC, by majority, can state what summer time will apply in Britain. Even if we did not like that, even if 650 hon. Members said that it was rubbish and put lives in danger, the new date would apply because of article 100A.

I appreciate that summer time is a very controversial issue which will divide hon. Members. I know that hon. Members from Scotland have very strong feelings because they know that their constituents feel desperately strongly about the dangers to children if we get summer time wrong. The papers presented to us from the EEC acknowledge that many lives could be put at risk if we get summer time wrong.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department promised in our last debate on this matter to look very carefully at the issue of the use of article 100A. I am now worried because it appears that the Government accept that article 100A is appropriate. How can anyone say that this issue involves freedom of trade or the internal market? Surely the fixing of summer time is a question for the Parliaments of each member state. Whether one is an enthusiast of the Common Market or a critic of it, there must be some issues on which national Parliaments must make up their own minds. I accept that some people would say that it would be more convenient if everyone in Europe had the same time. Of course it would, in the same way as that argument applies in the United States where there are wide variations in time. Even so, that does not upset the internal market.

Why on earth do the Government agree to article 100A? If they agree to it, do they not accept that there is a whole range of issues on which we can simply move to majority voting? We heard Mr. Jacques Delors say in Brussels recently that the time would come when 80 per cent. of our laws would be made in Brussels by majority vote. Mr. Delors was wrong. That time has come and that is obvious from the flood of Euro measures. We have considered three this week. If hon. Members took their jobs terribly seriously—as all hon. Members do—and studied this weekend the mass of papers for the debate on Monday night, they would be horrified to see what is proposed.

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)

The hon. Gentleman will realise that many years ago we said that if we decided to join the Common Market this kind of thing would happen. Slowly but surely our rights are being taken away. We shall soon be told when we can get up and when we can go to bed. We are being told exactly what to do. Slowly but surely, the decisions that we have to make for the people of this nation are being taken away from us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. This is a debate on summer time, not bed time.

Mr. Taylor

The hon. Gentleman is right. Many people feel that. However, in fairness I should say that all the sovereign rights that have gone—the hon. Gentleman and I have been in the same Lobbies in opposing them—have been approved by the House of Commons. We must ask ourselves tonight whether more sovereignty is going than Parliament has agreed to.

In the Single European Act and in our own legislation we have defined what was included under article 100A. That is not just the view of some strange nut speaking from the Back Benches; that was the crucial issue raised by the Scrutiny Committees of the House of Commons and the other place where wise people look at such matters with great care. They said that on this matter article 100A did not appear to be appropriate. We have the expert advice of Mr. Speaker's counsel that article 100A should not apply. Anybody who studies such matters would also say that article 100A was not appropriate.

What worries me is that if this measure goes through we have no idea what the Council of Ministers will do in three, four or five years' time. What we do know is that the right to decide summer time has gone from the House of Commons and will be decided by the majority vote of the Council of Ministers.

That is even more worrying when we realise what is involved. It is not just a matter of whether we have an extra hour's sleep; we are talking about real-life issues—the convenience of industry, the lives of children and what happens on our roads.

Some may say that that is silly and that the Common Market will always do the sensible thing. However, some take the view that it does not always do what is sensible, and I am among that number. But whether we think that or not, the crucial point is that Parliament is passing the power to decide to a group of Ministers. It would not be so bad if those Ministers considered every issue on its merits, but we all know from previous experience that if, for example, we want Holland's support on an agricultural matter and Holland wants our support on issues affecting health and safety, people say, "We will support you on this if you support us on that." That is an unsatisfactory form of democracy, but we cannot discuss that tonight because that decision was taken by Parliament a long time ago.

In view of what was said when we last discussed this matter, and in view of the importance of the issue to people throughout Britain, are the Government willing to say that article 100A does not apply? If not, will they say why? If we agree to this, oher matters can be similarly decided upon.

The Government have said that we shall have a new thinking period of three years in which to decide which way we want to go. There are several options. We all know them. The crucial one is whether to stop summer time in September or October. I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of this because those views have been expressed by hon. Members in Parliament time and again. The crucial issue is why we should allow an issue such as this to be decided by a majority vote of the Council of Ministers, about which we can do nothing.

We have seen time and again recently that, irrespective of the views of the Government and Members of Parliament, if the Council of Ministers decides something by a majority, that is that and we have to implement it. Only a few weeks ago we had to pass an order abolishing origin marking. The right of people to know where something is made has gone, not because the Government wanted that, but because the Commission said that it was wrong to discriminate between European goods. The Government took legal advice and were told that they should accept that ruling.

I appreciate that the battle over the loss of sovereignty was, to some degree, decided when we passed the Single European Act. I opposed it, but the majority voted for it and that is settled. What worries me is that we are adding a crucial matter to what has already gone and that is tragic. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to think carefully about the amendments and about standing firm on this occasion. Even if they lose the battle—we appreciate that the change will be difficult to get through the Council—at least the British people will know that the Government are speaking up for Britain and for Parliament.

Hon Members on both sides of the House were greatly heartened by what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Bruges. However, words are one thing, actions are another. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister on this occasion to stand up for parliamentary sovereignty and the rights of our people, and stand up against the threat to the lives of our children. Try to make sure that on this occasion we say that this matter should be decided by the United Kingdom Parliament, not by the Council of Ministers.

7.55 pm
Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles)

I shall take only a couple of minutes, but it is regrettable that I should have to take even that time. The summer time issue should have been settled when we last rejected the experiment in the early 1970s. My predecessor in the House made his maiden speech in that debate and it is regrettable that we should still be discussing the same old issues.

My main objection is to the option to change winter time to British summer time and to have summer time plus one hour. That experiment was tried in the early 1970s and it failed. It was hugely unpopular in the north of Scotland, particularly in my constituency, where discontent was such that there was a grassroots movement to go on to our own time zone which we were also to call BST—British Stornaway time. I am sure that if the Government take up this option seriously, we shall see the same grassroots movement against it.

I draw the Minister's attention to the recent survey by the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland as recently as the early summer of this year, in which it asked its various affiliated organisations their preferences on the various options being canvassed by the Government for the alteration of summer time. Of the 28 organisations that replied, 19 said that they preferred the status quo; only two wanted British summer time during the winter. Those organisations that wish to retain the status quo had their bases in Scotland and their members in some way or other made most of their living off the land, whether through fanning, forestry or even tourism. The two organisations which wanted a change were the Ramblers Association and the Royal Automobile Club Motoring Services, both of which have their headquarters in London. That is instructive.

The notion that the change suggested in the Government's list of options has anything to do with the need to develop a single market is preposterous. It is as preposterous as the notion that we must have a uniform sales tax across the EEC. The example of the United States shows that it functions perfectly well with differential sales taxes in different states. Several different time zones also operate across that continent. There is no reason why we cannot do the same, even in the context of a united states of Europe and a movement towards greater European unification in respect of other matters.

The application of a central European time from the most northern part of Europe down to the Mediterranean will not make any sense. At this early opportunity, I record my constituents' opposition, which is shared, I am sure, by most of the north of Scotland.

8 pm

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)

I support the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), because there is no question—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take this on board—that the view in Scotland is almost totally unanimous. I say "almost" because one usually finds that organisations that do not support the Scottish view have their roots and origins in London. Scottish-based organisations, and certainly my own constituents, have posed more questions to me on this subject than they have on the community charge, which gives an indication of their depth of feeling.

Summer time has been an issue for many years, and whenever there have been proposals for experimentation, Scotland has wanted the status quo to continue. I hope that, during the three-year respite, the Government will have second thoughts about the way in which they deal with the directive and accept that it does not come under article 100A but is something on which they should take a stand.

It is not the great issues that mostly affect people's attitudes but the small matters that impinge on their everyday lives. A change in British summer time will doubtless have an enormous impact on everyday life. The hon. Member for Western Isles, using the United States as an example, argued that it is nonsense to claim that such a change is necessary to make the market more efficient.

That certainly is the most nonsensical argument anyone can produce. The finest markets operate worldwide. The Japanese would not work any more effectively and efficiently if they observed a different time zone. They operate under a very different time zone from ours, yet they manage to penetrate our markets successfully. It is ridiculous to suggest that a change in summer time will help the market place. It is instead an administrative notion, from bureaucrats who like everything nice and tidy and who want us all to be the same. It is time people realised that Scotland likes to be different. We enjoy being different, and we want to be different. There are good reasons why we are different, and those differences will be impinged upon by a change of the kind proposed.

8.3 pm

Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)

The House will note the exceptional Scottish interest there is in this matter. That is not surprising when one remembers that Scotland was the place of the previous British summer time experiment, which was far from relished. The strength of feeling now being expressed results from that earlier experiment, which caused major problems for Scotland.

The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out that his predecessor, the right hon. Donald Stewart, used his maiden speech to emphasise his opposition to British standard time. Scotland's geography has not changed, and the arguments used then still hold true.

In the British Isles, the sun rises on a line roughly south-west to north-east. In the middle of December, it is 10.15 am before Scots begin to see a blink of daylight. That is why there were demands for the abolition of British standard time from a host of sources, including the National Federation of Building Trade Employers, worried about the consequences for the building industry; the National Farmers Union, whose members faced special problems rising from the adoption of British standard time; the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers; the Union of Post Office Workers; the Scottish Inshore White Fish Producers Association, and others. Opposition was clearly expressed by a whole range of Scottish organisations. I am certain that if they were asked again, they would express a similar view.

Scotland's geographic realities mean that uniformity with more southerly European states will create major problems in rural areas for farmers, the construction industry and others. Scotland's lower temperatures will combine with the penalties imposed by extra hours of darkness to increase industry's costs and its energy and light requirements. It will place an extra stress on the population. I ask the Government to note the problems that women and children in rural areas will face if they are forced to walk great distances in darkness. The earlier objections to the proposals stand, but today we live in a very different society, posing even greater dangers to the individual.

I want to get over to the Government the message that Scotland would face many problems if such a change is made. It is not beyond the wit of humankind to take into account the geographic realities of Scotland's northern areas and to act accordingly. The Soviet Union and the United States have different time zones, and it should not be beyond the wit of the Community to devise a solution that will suit its members. The last experiment showed that a change will bring major problems for Scotland. There was desperate opposition to it, and nothing has changed since then. I hope that the Government, in all their dealings in this matter, will take account of Scotland's plea and the nature of the problems that a return to British standard time would create for it.

If the Government question whether there really is such opposition they have only to ask, for I am sure that they will receive exactly the same message. Scotland requires a time structure that suits its special needs, not one that is imposed for external reasons.

8.6 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I cannot be as brief or as wide ranging as some right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken for the reason that has already been given by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor): I am Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, whose two lengthy reports on the subject I draw to the attention of the House.

I wish to address points of legal and constitutional significance. Important though the considerations are to which my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have referred, ultimately it will be for its constitutional and legal aspects that this case will be remembered. Unfortunately, the proceedings of the House mean that the Minister did not open this debate. I suppose that that is the responsibility of those of us who did not take the opportunity to permit him to do so by drawing to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the method that would make that possible. I regret to say that, but for a point of order, this matter could have gone through on the nod. However, the Minister will have one go and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) also has one go.

I want to clear the ground, and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. We are discussing a number of points relating to summer time, but we are really discussing the EEC's fifth directive. As I understand it, if voluntary agreement is not reached by 1993 the consequence will be that we shall be dictated to not only as to GMT plus two, and when that finishes or changes, but also in respect of the voluntary arrangement for its start, and that those decisions will be made for us by the Council of Ministers by majority vote. Important though that is to all right hon. and hon. Members, it is a striking example of the way in which decisions—including the time at which we shall go to bed—are being made for our country by majority vote of the Council of Ministers. Meanwhile, the Government are arranging a survey. When the Minister replies, no doubt he will tell the House something of the results which —surprise, surprise—might mean the Government presenting proposals fitting in with those of our European partners across the Channel. In that case there would be no need for that vote. I rather suspect that such an arrangement may emerge, although I do not wish to be too cynical. I am trying to clear the ground. As I have said, we are discussing the fifth directive, which the Select Committee considered of sufficient legal and political importance to be debated in the House.

I must now revert to important and detailed constitutional matters which may be difficult to describe and even more difficult to understand. But the example that I shall give may reveal not only to the British public but to hon. Members the extent to which majority voting will replace our own legislation, not just on summer time but in a sphere as yet undefined.

I believe, as I said in a speech the other day, that when the House passed the Single European Act and authorised the insertion in the treaty of Rome of article 100A, no one—including myself—understood the implication. If anyone did, we were not told. Certainly no one told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I was then a Member, and no Minister mentioned the implication with which I shall deal tonight. Either they did not know or they were concealing it from the House. I am one of those with a charitable turn of mind who believes that they did not know.

I am not suggesting that the Minister will venture tonight into those lofty areas of politics and constitution, although as a lawyer he will probably understand their importance. It was because he understood such matters that, when they were raised in a debate on 28 April by the hon. Member for Southend, East and myself, he doubted whether the use of article 100A would be appropriate. That, at least, was my interpretation of what he said. Since then we have corresponded with the Home Secretary. I should like to quote some of that rather lengthy correspondence in a moment, as it is very significant.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg)

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand my stance at the last debate, and I am sure that he did not intend to do so. I chose my words very carefully. What I said was: I do not propose to express a concluded view on the issue, if only because I do not think that I am competent to do so. I went on to say: I am not irrevocably persuaded that article 100A applies to the directive. Clearly, that matter requires further consideration. I most certainly do not concede that the directive is intra vires article 100A."—[Official Report, 28 April 1988; c. 617.]

Mr. Spearing

I wholeheartedly concur, and I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. I think that I referred to "doubt", and it is fair to say that there was doubt across the Floor of the House about the suitability of the article in relation to summer time.

I must now go into the details of the written constitution under which the House now operates, which will, I am afraid, take some time. Article 8A of the treaty of Rome, on which article 100A hangs, states: The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. To that extent it defines the internal market. Article 100A, to which it gave life, is much longer, but the important paragraph for our purposes reads thus:

The Council shall … in co-operation with the European Parliament and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, adopt the measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulations or adminstrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. The important word there is "functioning". Any law or regulation in a member state that impinges on the functioning, or non-functioning, of the internal market comes within the ambit of article 100A, or would at least appear to. I should mention that article 100A is subject to majority voting, whereas article 100—the original article in the treaty—speaks of the establishment and functioning of the common market. That article was subject to unanimity. There is, of course, a difference between the functioning of the Common Market and that of the internal market, and they are governed by slightly different articles.

Mr. Speaker's counsel drew the attention of the Select Committee in Report HC43 No. 15 to the use of article 100A in respect of what was then the fourth directive, which, as I have said, we discussed on 28 April. Mr. Speaker's counsel, who advises Mr. Speaker on legal matters, told the Committee—and we thought it important enough to note his advice in annex B—that the Government, who are responsible to the House, should not have been content with the choice of article 100A for the directive in question. In being so content—as I shall illustrate by quoting from a letter from the Home Secretary—they are making the directive subject to majority voting; if it had remained under article 100 it would have been subject to unanimity.

It is an important choice for any Government to have to make. The Council of Ministers can, if it wishes, challenge the basis of a regulation chosen by the Commission. The Commission is much more powerful than some hon. Members who have made speeches recently: it alone can produce draft laws and regulations. Any one of the 600-odd hon. Members in the House can present private Members' Bills, but the Prime Minister herself cannot put a draft proposal before the Council of Ministers.

The Commission is the eye of the needle. Moreover, it not only puts forward the law but cites the article of the treaty of Rome—which is our written constitution—on which it is based. If it is based on an article that requires unanimity, that gives every nation a veto. On the other hand, if article 100A is cited, a qualified majority of 23 votes is required to stop or block it. The United Kingdom and West Germany have only 10 each. Even two major states are not sufficient on their own to block a proposal under article 100A.

Hon. Members may say that it all sounds a bit legal and complicated so far, but so what? If article 100A is chosen for the summer time directive there may be a few chunterings from a few hon. Members, but what does it matter? It matters very much, because if the Commission is able to cite article 100A for this directive, what will they not be able to cite it for? We are not talking just about the length of daylight, the number of hours in GMT plus or minus or the date on which it should finish. Strange though it may seem in an unexpectedly early debate in an almost empty Chamber, we are really talking about the powers of the EEC to pre-empt the legislative authority of the House.

I have said on radio and in speeches that we do not know the perimeters to that power. I do not think that the Government know, either. I certainly do not think that the Home Office knows.

The Select Committee has embarked on a study of the choice of treaty base after the Single European Act comes into force. We have taken evidence—in HC 178—iv and v —from Government spokesmen, including evidence from Home Office spokesmen. The report is not yet complete and I do not intend to quote from it, but the witnesses appeared to be somewhat at variance with one another. We are still conducting that inquiry, so I shall not pursue the matter. It is still, as it were, sub judice. However, the Home Office spokesmen gave evidence as to why the Home Office thinks that article 100A is suitable in this instance. We are to take evidence from other witnesses before we publish our report.

In the meantime, the Government are steaming on and using that article, despite the fact that in the original report on the matter—HC 43-xv—we questioned its use. After the debate on 28 April to which the Minister referred I wrote to the Home Secretary and asked him why, in the fifth directive—the one with which we are dealing—the Government accepted article 100A in their explanatory memorandum and why they also accepted it in the Council of Ministers. I also asked the Home Secretary to explain why, after the doubts that had been expressed on various occasions about the use of article 100A, the Government went ahead with it.

In our next report that was published last week—HC 43 xxxviii—we published the correspondence that I have had with the Home Secretary on the topic. I shall read to the House the last part of our report so as to put the matter into context. On page 6 we say: The Committee's concern about this point arises from the inference to be drawn from the arguments used by the Home Office, namely that, if any perceived internal market element found recourse to Article 100A, only political considerations restrict the scope of Community action under this Article in areas not specifically excluded. The Legal Adviser points out that this could have implications for national competence and, more significantly, draw the outline of a massive area in which Member States' freedom of action may be inhibited pending Community action. Furthermore, acceptance of this approach in one case may have implications for the Government's position regarding other proposals. The Committee therefore intends to pursue this question in the context of its current studies on choice of Treaty base. The Committee demonstrates above that this proposal raises important legal questions. It considers that important political questions are also raised and recommends further consideration by the House on the occasion of a debate on Summer Time Arrangements. That is this debate.

I revert to the original note of Mr. Speaker's counsel and to the reasons why he doubts whether this regulation ought to come under article 100A. The point is fairly clear.

Summer time does not affect the physical movement of goods or the movement of telephonic communications. The establishment of the internal market depends upon the breaking down of physical and legal barriers. We have to ask what physical or legal barriers are impeded by different time zone arrangements. I put it to the House that there is little evidence of that. "Ah," say those in favour, "yes, there is. Business men, speaking from one side of the Channel to the other, or from one time zone to another, are inconvenienced by different time zones. Therefore," say those who are in favour of using article 100A, "there are commercial and market elements that justify the use of 100A." They say that it is justified, even if the British people believe that matters such as agriculture and daylight are important, apart from the importance of this House deciding for itself what should be done. It is a constitutional issue.

Whether one consideration justifies the use of article 100A over all other considerations is a moot point. We debated that matter on 28 April. After that debate there was the Home Office's decision and the fifth directive. The Home Office said that it was content that article 100A should be used, but it did not tell the House at that time. We found out by looking at the explanatory memorandum, where we saw that article 100A had been accepted and that the Home Office had not objected to its inclusion. Therefore, we shall have to accept a majority decision in due course.

I want to take the House one stage further. If the Home Office believes that that is acceptable, which other Government Departments will accept article 100A when only elements of commerce or the market are involved instead of commerce and the market being absolutely overwhelming or dominant?

Mr. Teddy Taylor

The matter is even more serious than that. According to the Home Secretary's letter, which is published in the report, he does not argue that it comes within article 100A. He states simply that he finds it difficult to argue that it does not fall within article 100A and that even if it did he would not win the case before the Council of Ministers. As the Government are allowing it to go through—not because they agree with it but because they think that it might be difficult to prove that they do not agree with it—does that not mean that a much wider scope of legislation will be passed from this Parliament to Brussels?

Mr. Spearing

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He takes me in this arcane but fundamentally important area to my next point. The correspondence that I have had with the Home Secretary—published in our latest report, HC43-xxxviii—reproduces in length what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The Home Secretary said: To understand how the Fifth Directive would contribute to the establishment and functioning of the internal market, it has to be read alongside earlier Directives in the series, especially the First Directive of 2 July 1980/737/EEC, the recitals of which clearly indicate that the objective pursued is to facilitate transport and telecommunications between Member States. As I have just demonstrated, transport is not impeded by a time zone boundary. A ship or an aeroplane does not stop at a boundary for an hour or so, or even for a day, and then proceed on its journey. All that it does is to change the time. Similarly, there is no impedance, other than electrical, in the electric current of the airwaves or those of the telephone. There is no immediate interruption or pause, as there is at a boundary.

The Home Secretary went on to say that the presidency had been helpful in delaying matters to allow time for the Select Committee to look at the matter and to allow the debate to take place, but the Home Secretary does not dissent from the belief that this regulation is well founded on article 100A, whereas the Committee believes that it is not.

I hope to persuade the House—whatever we do about this particular regulation—that the Home Secretary is wrong and the Government are wrong and had they gone to the EEC Court they would have had a very good argument. If we look at countries which cover a very wide latitude and constitute a single internal market, whether or not it is regulated—particularly the United States of America, the USSR or other countries divided by fewer commercial or political boundaries—it is clear that physical requirements require them to have a time zone because of the latitude that they occupy. However, nobody would suggest that that impedes the claimed economic effectiveness of a single internal market.

How can the existence of time zones intrinsically affect the internal market? It may be that people are inconvenienced socially. It may mean that a man in Paris or a man in London may find it less convenient to telephone at a particular time, but no doubt he would find it inconvenient to telephone Madrid at lunchtime, even if they were in the same time zone. That is a social inconvenience which has nothing to do with time zones or statutes. It is a matter of social habit.

In conclusion, the Government have not, in the view of the Select Committee, made a good case for article 100A. In fact, they have made no case at all. If they have been content to allow article 100A to go through on this matter, when in our view there was an excellent case to resist it, why and on what basis are they accepting article 100A on many other issues in the Cockfield package, and no doubt in the years ahead, without saying, "No, we object to that. It must come under another article where the Government's powers will be stronger and we are not likely to be outvoted by the Council of Ministers."

That is the nub issue. Is it that the Government have not woken up to the fact that the choice of treaty base is fundamental to determine whether the House or the Council of Ministers decides? If they have not woken up to that, they had better do so pretty quickly. If they have, why did they let article 100A through on summer time when we believe that the case was minimal? There must be an answer to that, and the answer bears fundamentally on the constitution of this nation, on the freedom of its subjects and on the power of the House to decide on laws in the United Kingdom. The debate has arisen, as it were, by accident at an unexpected time, but I believe that the issues are fundamental ones with which we have been attempting to grapple. I do not believe that the Government have understood them, and they certainly have not grappled with them inside the Council of Ministers. If they had, we would not be debating the issue here tonight.

8.33 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central)

This has been an important debate and, ironically, it has been quite short, given the two important matters which it raises. The extremely important question of summer time causes a great deal of concern, especially in Scotland and in the north and west of Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) have touched upon those points. The debate also raises a very important constitutional issue for the United Kingdom which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have raised. It is ironic that the proponents have changed, that those who support the measure are not here tonight and it looks as if the Minister is on his own. I wonder whether the Government are using this measure, which is uncontentious in certain parts of the country, as a bridgehead and as an experiment to see the reaction of the House to the use of article 100A. It is setting a precedent which worries many of us.

The proposal illustrates the perils of centralisation. I believe that we are being pushed towards accepting what is best for the centre of Europe after 1993, rather than having regard to the needs and wishes of all parts of the United Kingdom.

The Commission at least has accepted that there is a problem and that the case for change is not proved. We have a breathing space of some three years to debate the matter further and to decide what to do. The directive proposes no change for three further years, and to that extent we are certainly not opposed to it.

Before examining the merits or otherwise of summer time, may I say that a preliminary point has been raised at some length by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. The directive is made under article 100A, which is directed towards measures which have as their objective the establishment and functioning of a single market. However, the article seems to be a catch-all, rather like a breach of the peace in criminal law. If one cannot get someone under something specific, one can go for breach of the peace. The idea that a common time system is part of the scope of the single market, and an essential part of it, seems a very broad interpretation and lends weight to the belief that this measure is being used as a bridgehead to try something out.

The 38th report of the Select Committee on European Legislation, dated 2 November, states: The Committee continues to doubt the general appropriateness of Article 100A as the Treaty base for Summer Time Directives. Whilst it notes the arguments advanced that the objective pursued is to facilitate transport and telecommunications between Member States, it finds it difficult to accept that time differences per se either constitute an impediment to such services or to free movement or constitute 'internal frontiers'. If this contention is accepted, it is consequently difficult to see how such proposals can 'have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market', the test for recourse to Article 100A as a Treaty base. Of course, that is absolutely right. It is difficult to see why article 100A has been relied upon by the Government except that it provides a bridgehead and means that it is extremely difficult for us to go against the Commission were it to decide against us.

I remind the House that article 4 of the directive clearly states: The Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt by I January 1992 the arrangements to apply from 1993 onwards. That means that, no matter what may be the wishes of the House, no matter what the Government may care about it, the Commission can do what it likes. The Commission is in Brussels, and I believe that, in common with the ideas in this country being dictated from a certain corner of the United Kingdom, what comes from the EEC is often conditioned by the way things are seen from Brussels rather than from anywhere else. We must have some regard to that and it should be a matter of some concern and I hoped that more hon. Members would have paid attention to it. If article 100A is to be used in such a broad manner, it has significant implications for the sovereignty of this Parliament.

I was not here when the Single European Act and other European measures were debated, but I wonder whether right hon. and hon. Members appreciated what they were doing, and in particular the impact of article 100A. As the hon. Member for Angus, East spoke in the debate, I must stress that there is a clear indication of how preposterous is the notion of Scotland within Europe. If we are subject to article 100A under which majority voting decides, the very idea of a country with three votes having any great influence is utterly preposterous. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Angus, East will tell his chums when he sees them later that what they are proposing is preposterous and does not stand up.

Mr. Andrew Welsh

I must point out the alliance between the Conservative party and the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman is echoing the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland when he was rudely dismissive of Denmark, Greece and other nations in Europe. What is important is that Scotland has a direct voice, unlike the present situation in which we are represented by delegates of delegates. It is important that Scotland is in Europe in its own right, and the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that.

Mr. Darling

The short answer is that if Scotland was an independent country it would have only three votes and would still be subject to the majority wish. If the majority was against Scotland, it could do nothing about it. Now that we are in the EEC and have subjected ourselves to article 100A—there is no reason to believe that all member states will not be subjected to it—we are surrendering much of our sovereignty to that body.

Mr. Bill Walker

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in terms of entry into Europe and influence in making decisions, many Scots have been represented in both Conservative and Labour Governments? When a Labour Government are in office, it will contain many Scots.

Mr. Darling

I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman welcoming the idea of a Labour Government with so many Scots in it.

Article 100A has been discussed at some length. I hope that the Minister will reply to the points that have been made and that the House will have an opportunity to discuss the matter again.

One's view of British summer time or double summer time depends on whether one lives north and west of a line running from Devon to Teesside—a new variation of the north-south divide. There are two options for change: first, to adopt the continental end date of September. I see no advantage in that. The longer nights will start one month early. It will hit tourism, prove difficult for industry, add to costs and affect the safety of children who live north of the line running between Devon and Teesside. Some of us still think of September as summer. The only justification for adopting a common end date in September must be the blinkered view that everything should be the same throughout Europe. If there must be a change, the end date should be in October.

The second option needs more attention because I suspect that that is the one towards which the Government are trying to edge us. That is to have British summer time in winter and double summer time in summer. It sounds good, but on closer examination I wonder whether it is. In December, from south-west Ireland to Berwick, the sun would not rise until 9.35 am and would set at about 5 pm. In Oban, the sun would rise at about 9.55 am and in Lerwick it would not rise until after 10 am and would set at 4 pm. In the south-east of England, the sun would rise at about 9.10 am and set at about 5 pm.

Many people would be travelling to work or going to school and returning in darkness in the north and west of the United Kingdom. That worries many people and the Government will have to consider it seriously. It is not good enough to say, "It will be fine for the majority of the country who live in the south and east. Never mind the rest." It is important to recognise the serious risks to people travelling to work in the morning, and especially children travelling to school, on roads that are still covered in ice.

It is not as though our later mornings will be compensated for by longer evenings in the winter. For much of the winter, the sun will set at 5 pm or 6 pm, which means that children and people coming home from work will do so in darkness, or at least when the light is fading. As my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles said, people were badly hit by the change in his constituency. No wonder that an attempt was made to establish Stornoway time instead of the time to which the rest of the United Kingdom was operating.

I am sceptical about the benefits for leisure and safety. The case for safety has certainly not been proved and much more work must be done. The idea that in the winter we shall all be outside playing games and enjoying leisure activities is preposterous. No matter what one does with the time, we can do nothing about the British weather. For much of the year, especially in winter and sometimes in summer, it is not especially pleasant to be outdoors in the evenings.

Lest some may say that I have taken an example in December, when the evenings are darker anyway, let us consider the position in February. West of a line between Penzance and Edinburgh, the sun will not rise until after 8.20 am, so the position will not be that much better.

It is worth examining the arguments deployed in favour of double summer time, although we have heard none tonight. That emphasises again that the result will not be longer hours of daylight in the evening. We are told that there would be a reduction in the number of fatalities in road accidents, and that the increase in accidents in the morning will be more than offset by the likely reduction in the latter part of the day. That is no comfort to someone who may be injured in the morning. The Government should consider the experiments conducted in Sweden, which have found mornings to be the peak time for injuries and fatalities in road accidents. The fact that most people live in the south and east of England, where the mornings are lighter, twists the statistics for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Another argument is that there will be a small reduction in the number of burglaries and other criminal offences. That is wishful thinking.

The Government and those in Brussels argue that the change would create a substantial improvement in all aspects of trade and travel. But their argument does not stand up. If a British business man wishes to telephone his counterpart in France or Germany, it is not too difficult for him to arrange matters so that he telephones at a time when that person is at his desk. The United States struggles by with five time zones, yet no one has said that its economic performance has been adversely affected. The USSR manages to struggle by with 11 time zones.

It is nonsense to suggest that we should have the same time across Europe. We are encouraged not to use our telephones before 1 pm, and most people are used to arranging their affairs so that they speak when they know that people are there. It is a mere excuse for tinkering with the present system. What about the British business men who want to speak to people in Japan or to do business on the New York stock exchange? Should we have a world time?

The argument about harmonisation is flawed. There is no problem in having a Europe with great differences, whether they are cultural, political or based on time. No one is crying out for a change, so why do it? It is ironic that a Conservative Government, who are supposed to be about conserving things, want to change the present system. Even in July in Greece it gets dark at about 7 pm —that is one of the nice things about it. No one suggests that the Greeks should change their system to get longer evenings, even if that were possible.

The case for change has not been made. There are strong arguments that must be considered, and I hope that the Minister will tell us who has been consulted and the progress of his review. Most of the people to whom I have spoken on both sides of the House believe that the review is being carried out in a less than open manner. To whom is the Minister speaking, and in which areas of the country? Will he bear in mind the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles that organisations that function in Scotland and are based in London may not be the best ones to consult? I want an open period of consultation during which everyone in the United Kingdom can make his views known. Many people are unaware that this measure is being discussed tonight. Many hon. Members are unaware of the debate. The Government will have to give more publicity to the fact that a change is contemplated. For many people, especially those living in Scotland and in the north and west of England, the changes will have a great impact.

I hope that the Minister will deal with the basis on which the directive was made under article 100A. What happened when Ministers discussed the matter in Brussels? The exercise seems to be shrouded in secrecy. Of course, that is a characteristic of the Government. Little that they do is open, especially when they do not want us to know about it.

The Minister has a duty to tell the House what fight was put up and to give a categorical assurance that, before any other directive on summer time comes forward, the House will have an opportunity to debate at length the premise on which the matter comes forward, based as it is on article 100A, and the merits of summer time. If he gives such assurances, we shall certainly not divide the House. If he does not do so, he can rest assured that the matter will come back again and again, because of its serious implications for the way in which people live and for the constitutional issues that it raises.

8.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg)

I begin with an apology—an apology that I owe to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). I regret to say that I came into the Chamber a trifle late. Although I heard, I think, 95 per cent. of his speech, I missed the opening few sentences. I profoundly apologise to him. I hope that he will accept that I intended no discourtesy.

The House will accept that my hon. Friend set the tone of the debate. The points that he made have been echoed by several hon. Members, and they need to be addressed today and subsequently. My hon. Friend began by stressing the importance of the matter we are debating, and, in particular, focused on the choice of article 100A as the treaty base of the directive. The House has heard his arguments, and I shall seek to deal with them shortly.

My hon. Friend's arguments were supported by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is concerned about the choice of article 100A as the appropriate treaty base. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East understandably drew attention to the concern of the peoples of Scotland and England, and in that particular he was powerfully supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). The people of Scotland's concern about this matter is serious, and we clearly must address it before we come to final conclusions.

I hope to explain why the Government have decided to take the action that we are now taking, and I hope that I will be able to reassure several hon. Members. But, before I address the particular points that I intend to address, it would be helpful if I were to spell out the nature of the directive and its consequences.

The proposal does not require that we make any change to our arrangements for summer time during the lifetime of the directive. It provides that the status quo shall continue for a further three years. Moreover, and because we are carrying out a review of our summer time arrangements, the directive enables us, if we so choose, to depart from the status quo and harmonise our dates with other member states during the lifetime of the directive. But again I stress that the choice is ours.

The directive provides that, for a further period of three years, 1990, 1991 and 1992, the existing arrangements for starting and ending dates of summer time will continue throughout the Community. Thus, as now, summer will start throughout the Community on the last Sunday of March, but, in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, it will end on the last Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October. In other member states, it will end on the last Sunday in September.

Continuation of the status quo in that way means that we are out of phase with other members states in two respects. First, we end summer time one month later than others, except the Irish Republic. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central has made observations about that matter with which I have considerable sympathy. Secondly, the effect is to place us in a different time zone from continental member states. We are, with the Irish Republic and Portugal, one hour behind central European countries.

The European Commission and other member states have never pressed us to change in that respect, but, because the Government have detected a widespread feeling in this country that more summer time might be beneficial to us, we have commissioned a review in which one option would be to move into the central European time zone. That would give us more summer time and, at the same time, enable us to harmonise time with the Community throughout the year. But that is an idea—we could properly describe it as an option—which the United Kingdom Government have brought forward. It is not an idea—it is not an option—which the Commission has either proposed or advocated. However, if adopted, it would enable us to meet the Commission's objectives of all states finishing summer time together if we left October as it now is.

Mr. Spearing

It might be right to clear up a point that I made, from which the Minister has not dissented. Whatever may happen between now and 1992, is it not a fact that, if we do not voluntarily harmonise in the way in which the Minister is suggesting may or not be possible subsequent to that date, by use, if it were chosen, of article 100A, we would be subject to the majority decision on the matter, as I outlined at the beginning of my speech? Is not the cessation of the regulation at the end of 1992 just as much an important feature of the proposal as any other?

Mr. Hogg

I can entirely understand why the hon. Gentleman raised that point. It is a bit premature to speculate on what might or could happen at that time. Clearly, several possibilities exist. One possibility is that, of our own volition, we might decide to move to central European time, in which case we would consider primary legislation. Another possibility—I stress that these are only possibilities, to meet a question from the hon. Gentleman —is that we might consider the possibility of moving the end date forward one month. That would require secondary legislation in this place.

We might—it is another possibility—decide to maintain the status quo. In that event, we would, it is true, require a directive to achieve that objective, but we might very well achieve it by persuasion. I would be surprised if we were unable to persuade member states to adopt a view which, in the end, we would wish to put forward.

There is a range of possibilities. As yet, the Government have come to no firm conclusion. The nature of the possibility that emerges at the end depends upon constitutional consequences. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I cannot go down the road that he pointed me to, but I hope that I have given a fair indication of the kind of options that the House will have to consider after the expiration of the directive.

Mr. Darling

The Minister talked about the various options that the Government are considering, and the various options that might come forward. Can he tell us a little more about who is being consulted and what the nature and scope of the review is, or is it something that Ministers are discussing among themselves? Our concern is that all parts of the country are not being consulted and therefore have good cause to be concerned.

Mr. Hogg

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. I was going to come to it shortly, but this is as convenient a time to mention it as any other.

It is our intention to publish a consultation paper within the next few months, which will include the options that I mentioned in reply to the question from the hon. Member for Newham, South. We will publish the consultation document, which will open the discussion wide and will involve anybody, and I hope everybody, who has a view that they wish to express. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central asked me to give an assurance that there will be a wide discussion. There will be a wide discussion on the basis of the consultation paper and the Government will once again display their skill in their desire to ensure open debate on matters of major importance.

The treaty base underlying this directive is, I believe, the concern that has motivated hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. There have been other questions, but article 100A has been very much to the fore of the debate. It might be useful to remind ourselves that the first three directives were introduced under article 100, and, as the House knows, article 100 provides for unanimous decisions. The fourth directive and the present draft directive have been brought forward under article 100A which, as hon. Members have rightly pointed out, calls for and provides for a qualified majority.

As I have always believed in the power of persuasion, and I made my living from it for some time, I am not so pessimistic about these things as some hon. Members appear to be. It is worth reminding the House that the object of article 100A, as the hon. Member for Newham, South rightly pointed out, is to deal with measures that have as their object the establishment and function of the internal market. That is the phraseology that the House is bound to have in mind when we consider the appropriate treaty base.

Inevitably, the present draft directive and the fourth directive have to be read in the context of the first and second directives. Hon. Members will, I know, have studied this, particularly the hon. Member for Newham, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. They will know from their study of the first and second directives that in the preamble express reference is made to the objective of facilitating transport and communication. That is the background against which we have to focus our considerations.

We have to ask ourselves whether we can sensibly say of this draft directive, or indeed the fourth directive, that it has an objective different from that which was the objective of the first and second directives, which we accepted. The House will, I think, accept that when one poses that question, one has to conclude that the objective of the present draft is the same—it must be the same—as the stated objective of the first and second directives and consequently what we are debating today is a draft directive that has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the facilitating of transport and communication.

When I wound up the debate on the Summer Time Order 1988 on 28 April 1988, I said—I have made this point before—that I was not "irrevocably persuaded" that article 100A was appropriate to the directive. However, I also said that the matter needed "further consideration". I shall be candid, as I have always tried to be candid with the House. I was not then willing to make a concession as to the vires of article 100A. I had formed clear preliminary views, but I wanted to test those views once again before I made a concession, which I recognise is a concession that is likely to bind us, certainly with future directives of this kind, and perhaps with other directives. Therefore, I was extremely cautious because I did not want to make a concession from which I might feel that I subsequently had to resile.

We have done what I said that we would do. We have considered carefully the vires of article 100A, and whether or not this directive falls within it. Our careful, considered view is that the directive falls within the scope of article 100A. If we were to win and assert the contrary, as the hon. Member for Newham, South and my hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North and for Southend, East want us to do, we would have to be able to say that the purpose of the directive was outside the scope of article 100A. We would have to prove that it was ultra vires. That means to say that we would have to establish that it was not a measure for the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulations or administrative action in member states which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market.

I do not believe that we could prove that article 100A was ultra vires partly because, in our judgment, it is intra vires, partly because, as a matter of evidence, we are stuck with the preambles to the first and second directives, and partly because, when we come to consider the consultation document, the House is likely to find that the views recorded in that document are to the effect that the present system of time is a constraint on travel and telecommunications. That will be a recording of other people's views and not necessarily, at that stage, the considered view of the Government.

Mr. Darling

Is the Minister already anticipating that, as a result of the review that we have not yet had, the majority of people will argue for the change that I suspect he wants? Surely, when we are considering the vires of this directive, it is for those who are promoting it to prove that it falls within the vires. I cannot see how the directive facilitates communication or transport, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments. So far as I can see, it makes no difference.

Mr. Hogg

The hon. Gentleman is not focusing precisely on the question. The consultation document is only a consultation document. It is designed to open the debate as wide as possible, but it likely that a substantial number of views will be recorded in the consultation document to the effect that the present time systems are a constraint. I know that, because I have a broad idea what the likely terms of the consultation document will be.

This is yet another evidential problem in our way because, when there is a recording of views to the effect that the present time system is a constraint and we accept, as we must do, that the first and second directives have as their objective in the preamble the facilitating of communication and travel, we have great difficulty in arguing that this directive is outside the scope of article 100A. If we have to challenge that, we have to prove that it is ultra vires. The business of any Government is to form a view. The view that we have formed is that the appropriate treaty base is article 100A. That is not to say that it would be ultra vires article 100. It may be within article 100, but it is not ultra vires article 100A.

Mr. Bill Walker

As a non-lawyer, I sometimes find it difficult to follow what is ultra vires and what is intra vires, but does my hon. Friend accept that a change in the time system, so that we have a longer period of darkness in the morning in Scotland, will mean that we have more black ice on the roads? That is the greatest constraint of all on travel and transport. We have to face that every winter and, if we have one more hour of darkness, I can assure my hon. Friend that that constraint will be visible and noticeable.

Mr. Hogg

My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North puts his case with considerable force. However, he would be well advised, before he rests on that argument, to consider in detail the views of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and to consider the documents that were available on British standard time in the early 1970s. The one point that was plain—which was mentioned in the last debate—was that British standard time resulted in a saving of lives and a reduction in injuries overall. It follows a fortiori that if British standard time had that effect, changing to central European time would have an even more pronounced effect.

Mr. Spearing

The Minister will probably agree with me on one point. Now that we are under a written constitution, the choice of articles and their interpretation are major legal matters. In justifying his choice of article 100A by earlier use of article 100, is the Minister suggesting that the two are conterminous? If they are conterminous, why is there a need of article 100A for derogation? That shows clearly that, in theory at least, there is some difference between the two articles, otherwise there would be no need for the A.

The Home Secretary sent me a letter dated today in which he said: In our survey of summer time, we have received evidence, particularly from organisations dealing with Europe, that the present arrangements, and in particular different ending dates for summer time, impede transport and telecommunications. That is the nub of the Government's case. Does the Minister agree that the present arrangements do not physically impede transport and telecommunications, because they cannot? They are an inconvenience and may be a social inconvenience. Habits may be an inconvenience between countries in the same time zone. However, impedance does not mean physical obstruction.

Mr. Hogg

The hon. Gentleman is fixated with the phrase "physical obstruction". The words he should use are "constraint" or "fetter" and constraints or fetters can take a number of forms. I have no doubt that in certain circumstances a difference in time zones which makes communication difficult or makes travel more complicated is a constraint or fetter that is capable of interferring with the proper performance of the internal market.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the letter he received from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which makes my point that there is evidence. Evidence will be appearing in the consultation document and that will make it extremely difficult, once that evidence is recorded as a fact. to contest the vires of article 100A.

In making his second point, the hon. Gentleman was being less subtle than he is normally. Words such as "conterminous" are splendid, but they do not add up to much. But this point does add up: the preambles to the first and second directives state the specific objective clearly—the facilitation of communications and travel. That concept brings us four square within article 100A and this is within its scope.

Mr. Macdonald

Does the Minister accept that his words about what he expects will be in the consultative document have sent a chill through the Opposition and Conservative Members with a knowledge of Scottish constituencies? I shall return to my constituency and tell people to prepare for a Government directive—on which the Minister has already made up his mind—that will attempt to foist central European time on the people of Scotland. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will not impose central European time against the majority will of the people of Scotland? I hope that the Minister will take the votes of Scottish Members as an indication of that majority will.

Mr. Hogg

The hon. Gentleman does both me an injustice—although I do not suppose that he cares about that—and his constituents, because he intends to deceive them about the position. I made it wholly plain. I said that we were about to publish a consultation document which would set out the options. They include doing nothing, which is maintaining the status quo, bringing the end date of summer time one month forward or going into the central European time zone. The Goverment have come to no conclusion. We are putting out the options so that people can express their views and Parliament and other scan form a clearer opinion as a result. If the hon. Gentleman speaks to his constituents as he has just spoken to the House, he will be deceiving them which I hope he will not do.

Mr. Macdonald

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg

I have given way sufficiently often and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is getting cross, which I have always found a compelling reason for sitting down. On that happy and conclusive note, I commend the Government motion to the House and ask the House not to accept the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East.

9.16 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor

With the leave of the House, I shall be brief.

We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for his usual courtesy in establishing the position. It is frightening constitutionally and means that the Government are saying that it must be article 100A if we cannot prove that it is not. That opens up a huge range. Secondly, they are saying that it is article 100A although the directive makes no changes and establishes the status quo. The Minister has been honest enough to tell us what the score is.

This is an important night for the constitution and I hope that every hon. Member, following the lead given by the Select Committee, will realise the dangerous constitutional issue that we now face and the whole series of legislation which is now sadly being transferred from here to Brussels. I hope that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) will not warn his constituents about what a Conservative, Labour or Liberal Government may do, but will tell them that, sadly, in three years' time, irrespective of what transpires, the decision on what happens to them will be made by the Council of Ministers by majority vote. That is the real issue tonight and it is a worrying one.

Again I thank the Minister for being so clear. My five colleagues who signed the amendment are coming to the House at 10 o'clock for the debate and it would be discourteous to them to force this to a Division in their absence, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7876/88, on Summer Time arrangements; and supports the continuation of the existing arrangements for a further three years to enable the Government to consult and give careful consideration to future summer time arrangements.