§ Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Summer Time Act 1972; and for connected purposes.If my Bill were enacted, instead of turning our clocks back as we did last Sunday, we should remain on British summer time—that is, Greenwich mean time plus one hour —throughout the year but would advance the clocks a further hour between March and September. That would give us all an extra hour of evening daylight throughout the year. To quote Monday's leader in The Times, it
would add an hour of daylight to the part of the day when almost everyone is awake and active.I am a relatively recent convert to single-double summer time, or central European time, as it is also known. However, one has only to recite its advantages to wonder how on earth we have managed to avoid introducing it for so long. I would like to pay particular tribute to the efforts of the Daylight Extra campaign, particularly its chairman, Angus Crichton-Miller—a good Scottish name—in arguing the case for double summer time. It would mean saving many lives on our roads, put British industry and commerce on an even footing with our European competitors and bring substantial benefits to the lifestyles of young and old alike.There are many good reasons for the change, and I will concentrate on three of them. There is now clear evidence, particularly from the Policy Studies Institute, that, in a full year, there would be about 140 fewer deaths on our roads if we were to introduce double summer time. In all, 2,000 or more road casualties would be avoided, with an annual saving, including national health service costs, of £200 million.
Available evidence from bodies such as the Transport Research Laboratory indicates that darker mornings are less of a risk to life and limb than darker evenings are. In the morning people are more alert, but in the evening they are less so. That is no doubt why organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents are in favour of my proposal.
Only last Sunday I led a torch-lit march down Whitehall and through Parliament square in support of my proposal. We had a minute's silence outside St. Stephen's entrance in recognition of the 140 unnecessary deaths that could occur in the next 12 months.
§ Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North)What about the situation in the north?
§ Mr. WatersonI am coming to that matter.
British industry and commerce also suffer under the present system. Except for a brief period during the year, our business men are hampered by a time difference of an hour or even two hours when they fly to Europe for a meeting. Even conducting business by telephone is made more difficult.
Nowhere are the advantages more clear cut than in the tourism industry. I take a particular interest in that subject as joint secretary of the Back-Bench tourism committee. Moreover, tourism matters a great deal to my constituency, among others. In Eastbourne, it brings in about £100 million a year and supports 6,000 jobs. The British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board fully support the proposal, and the Policy Studies Institute estimates that 829 more than £1 billion would be gained by the British tourism industry if we were to be on the same time as the continent.
Just imagine the extra jobs that could be created. It would make it easier for travel between this country and the rest of Europe and make for easier scheduling. I stress that that will be particularly important as the channel tunnel comes on stream. It would also lengthen the tourism season in many parts of the country and allow longer opening hours for tourist attractions. Many more British and overseas residents would consider taking their holidays in Britain.
Another very powerful reason for the change is the effect that it would have on the lives of our citizens, particularly older people. It is a sad fact of modern life that in many parts of the country, including my constituency, older people are often unwilling to venture out after dark or even answer their doors. The current system acts as an unofficial curfew for many people and affects the quality of their lives. That point is borne out by the four British crime surveys that were conducted by the Home Office between 1982 and 1992 and by the 1989–91 national travel survey.
My proposal would mean more hours of daylight throughout the year and it would allow pensioners and others to go out and about until later in the day. Nor is the potential benefit limited to older people in our population. Younger people would have more time to engage in sports and other activities before dark. There is some evidence that, with more daylight, crime figures would improve. It must be an advantage for women walking home alone that they are more likely to do so in daylight.
There is also likely to be a significant saving of at least £250 million in energy costs. No doubt that is one of the major reasons why we had the system during the war years, although, sadly, it was abandoned thereafter. There was also, of course, a half-hearted experiment with single summer time between 1968 and 1971.
Nor is this some wicked attempt by our European colleagues to erode the British way of life. I yield to no one in my Euro-scepticism. The plain truth is that Europe is about to follow our lead. In a recently published EC directive, it is proposed that our European friends should change their clocks at the same time as Britain—at the end of October. Harmonising of the clock change should abolish the anomaly that, for a period in October each year, we are on the same time as the rest of Europe, causing inevitable chaos for airports, and so on.
I firmly believe that double summer time is an idea whose time has finally come. In the past, there has been some opposition from certain sections of the community, especially in Scotland. However, on this occasion, that opposition is more muted. If we have a vote today, I suspect that the result will be somewhat exaggerated because it happens to fall on the same day as Scottish questions.
The Policy Studies Institute found that there would be an overall reduction of about 60 deaths and serious injuries in Scotland each year, which is proportionately greater than the reduction for England and Wales. Traditionally, farmers have had their reservations about the proposal, as have builders. According to a recent report in The Independent on Sunday, opinion in all nine regions of the National Farmers Union is moving in favour of my proposal.
The building industry, farmers and others could follow the lead of Scandinavia by starting work an hour later in the 830 winter months only to limit any problems caused by darker mornings. As Mary James, a dairy farmer near Bristol, was quoted as saying:
The new time system would be an inconvenience, but it would not kill anyone—it could save someone's life, which is what is most important.A Gallup survey recently found that 68 per cent. of people were in favour of the change and that the figure in England and Wales was 73 per cent.The proposal is sponsored by various organisations such as the BTA, the ETB, Age Concern, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Police Federation, the Sports Council, the ADC and the BMA. I am pleased to have support from both Government and Opposition Members in presenting my Bill.
The proposal contained in the Bill has an irresistible momentum behind it. As the EC has made up its mind about the harmonisation of clocks, there is no good reason for further delay. I hope that the Government will adopt my Bill and that we will see its rapid progress on to the statute book. The matter has been discussed for years. The time for action is now. In the words of the Daylight Extra campaign, "It's about time." Indeed, it is. I commend ray Bill to the House.
§ Mr. Peter Hain (Neath)I wish briefly to state the strong objections to the Bill which have been skated over by the promoter, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). Many of my hon. Friends from Scotland have voiced their objections, especially my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who has pointed out that the sun would not rise until 10 am in many parts of Scotland. A Government survey in 1971 showed that 61 per cent. of Scots opposed the reform, with only 6 per cent. being in favour of it.
My primary objective is to speak on behalf of Post Office workers. I do so as a sponsored Member of Parliament representing the Union of Communication Workers, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey). I can say on good authority that Postman Pat and Postman Dai are upset about the proposed change. If they are upset, I am sure that Postman Jock is absolutely livid.
There are between 80,000 and 90,000 delivery postmen and women. Most of them must be out the door at 7 o'clock in the morning. Scottish postmen and women will need to deliver in the dark for more than three hours if this proposed reform goes through. Therefore, if the change is made, they will be disproportionately penalised, together with farmers, milk deliverers and construction workers who will bear the consequences of the increased accidents that will result from a change that will bring about increased darkness while they work.
During the 1968–71 experiment in reforming the hours along the lines proposed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, the number of accidents to postal workers more than doubled. He did not mention that. Before British standard time was introduced in 1968, between the months of September and February between the hours of 7 am and 9 am there were 1,104 accidents to postal workers. After the change, there were 2,287 accidents. In other words, the figure nearly doubled; and in the 23 years since the experiment road traffic in the United Kingdom has also doubled.
831 Even if one assumed that the accident ratio to postmen and women would remain the same, a further 2,300 accidents would still be likely to happen to them each year, which means that nearly 5,000, or 6 per cent., of all delivery postmen and women would be so affected. It is absolutely vital to take that into account when the reform is considered, because Department of Transport evidence shows that accidents in the dark are twice as likely to kill pedestrians. In the early hours, especially in Scotland, pedestrians will include many schoolchildren.
The Department of Transport figures also show that 83 per cent. of accidents occur in darkness. Despite the fact that there is less traffic in the winter months, road casualties increased by 13 per cent. at the time that the Department of Transport investigation was carried out in 1986.
Postmen and women already face problems with crime which would massively increase during the dark hours that they have to go about their work. There are already many no-go areas where they refuse to deliver because they are the subject of muggings and attacks, and that problem would undoubtedly increase. In addition, they would have to work through dark mornings in the winter months, and with the poorer lighting they would be unable to read the addresses on envelopes as easily, slowing down their work. Bad paving and bad roads would also pose a greater problem and as a result their efficiency and safety would be impaired. In general, the change would have a deleterious effect on the quality of service provided by Royal Mail workers.
Another serious concern is that people who work during the dark, early morning hours suffer from decreased alertness. Research by doctors shows that instances of lapses in drivers' attention increase massively between the hours of midnight and dawn and as a result the number of accidents increases.
It is important to note that it is not merely delivery postmen and women, milk delivery workers, construction workers and farmers who would suffer; 70,000 postmen and women also perform night duties. If the change is made, they will have to go to and from work in darkness.
In conclusion, I must refer to the report by the Policy Studies Institute, as did the hon. Member for Eastbourne. He forgot to mention that the report made only glancing reference to the impact on postal workers. On page 17, it states that postal workers' lives would be made "more difficult." On page 35, it also states that the postal service would suffer
some discomforts and possibly diseconomies".But it ignores the fact that the number of accidents doubled when the change was last introduced between 1968 and 1971. Hon. Members who wish to support the change must remember that that experiment was hastily dropped as a result of a number of Scottish schoolchildren being killed on the way to school.My opposition to the Bill is based not simply on self-interest on the part of postmen and women, although we are entitled to take that into account, but on the interests of all people who are out and about in the early hours.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 86
833| Divison No. 371] | [3.48 |
| AYES | |
| Ainger, Nick | Hill, James (Southampton Test) |
| Alexander, Richard | Hill, Keith (Streatham) |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) | Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk) |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Ashby, David | Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) |
| Austin-Walker, John | Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H) |
| Bayley, Hugh | Jenkin, Bernard |
| Bell, Stuart | Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) |
| Benton, Joe | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW) |
| Betts, Clive | Keen, Alan |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine |
| Butler, Peter | Khabra, Piara S. |
| Butterfill, John | Lawrence, Sir Ivan |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Livingstone, Ken |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Marland, Paul |
| Churchill, Mr | Marlow, Tony |
| Clappison, James | Martlew, Eric |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Michael, Alun |
| Coffey, Ann | Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW) |
| Colvin, Michael | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Congdon, David | Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Olner, William |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Duncan, Alan | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Durant, Sir Anthony | Radice, Giles |
| Eastham, Ken | Rathbone, Tim |
| Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter | Rendel, David |
| Enright, Derek | Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW) |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Faber, David | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Fabricant, Michael | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Fatchett, Derek | Spink, Dr Robert |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Steel, Rt Hon Sir David |
| Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Sykes, John |
| Fisher, Mark | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Flynn, Paul | Thumham, Peter |
| Foster, Don (Bath) | Tyler, Paul |
| Fry, Peter | Waterson, Nigel |
| Gale, Roger | Watts, John |
| Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan | Whitney, Ray |
| Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John | Whittingdale, John |
| Gordon, Mildred | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Gorst, John | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W) |
| Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) | Wilson, Brian |
| Hannam, Sir John | Wright, Dr Tony |
| Hanson, David | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Hargreaves, Andrew | |
| Harvey, Nick | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Mrs. Jacqui Cait and |
| Hawkins, Nick | Mr. Matthew Banks. |
| Heppell, John |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Mrs Irene | Ewing, Mrs Margaret |
| Allen, Graham | Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas |
| Ashton, Joe | Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Galloway, George |
| Barnes, Harry | Godman, Dr Norman A. |
| Beith, Rt Hon A. J. | Gorman, Mrs Teresa |
| Callaghan, Jim | Graham, Thomas |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Greenway, Harry (Eating N) |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Hain, Peter |
| Canavan, Dennis | Hardy, Peter |
| Carttiss, Michael | Hoey, Kate |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld) |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Home Robertson, John |
| Cohen, Harry | Hood, Jimmy |
| Connarty, Michael | Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Hughes, Roy (Newport E) |
| Cummings, John | Hutton, John |
| Davidson, Ian | Illsley, Eric |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | Jopling, Rt Hon Michael |
| Dixon, Don | Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S) |
| Dover, Den | Kilfedder, Sir James |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'stn) | Rooney, Terry |
| Lewis, Terry | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Loyden, Eddie | Rowlands, Ted |
| Loyden, Eddie | Salmond, Alex |
| Macdonald, Calum | Skinner, Dennis |
| McFall, John | Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury) |
| McKelvey, William | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Maclennan, Robert | Snape, Peter |
| McMaster, Gordon | Spearing, Nigel |
| Madden, Max | Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W) |
| Maginnis, Ken | Stott, Roger |
| Mahon, Alice | Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd) |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) |
| Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) | Thornton, Sir Malcolm |
| Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute) | Walker, Bill (N Tayside) |
| Molyneaux, Rt Hon James | Wallace, James |
| Patchett, Terry | Wareing, Robert N |
| Pickthall, Colin | Welsh, Andrew |
| Pike, Peter L. | Wray, Jimmy |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | |
| Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Raynsford, Nick | Mr. Phil Gallic and |
| Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) | Mr. David Trimble. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nigel Waterson, Mr. Alan Haselhurst, Mr. Barry Field, Mrs. Jacqui Lait, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Dr. Tony Wright, Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Mr. Alan Duncan, Mr. David Willetts, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Matthew Banks and Mr. Nick Hawkins.
-
c833
- SUMMER TIME (AMENDMENT) 44 words