DAYLIGHT SAVING. (Hansard, 14 May 1918)

§ LORD SYDENHAM
My Lords, I think it can fairly be said that all the objections raised to the Daylight Saving Act of last year have fallen to the ground. I remember it was said that the cows would not give milk at an unaccustomed hour. As far as we can see, the cows have adapted themselves to the change. Then there was the more complicated question of the twins, which I think Lord Balfour of Burleigh propounded. That question has not arisen, and probably is not likely to arise. The question which now presents itself is whether we might not go a little further in the direction we went last year. I think we might do so, but it is just as well to weigh all the objections which may arise from longitude and latitude. As to longitude, England and Scotland are not much affected; but when you come to Ireland you find that Belfast in normal circumstances is twenty-four minutes before the sun, and that Kerry is forty minutes before the sun. If you add two hours in both cases I think very considerable inconvenience would arise. As regards latitude, of course the effect of taking another hour in London and the southern counties would be that people would have to go to bed before it was dark. That is the normal condition of things up in the North during the summer months, and I do not think any great hardship could arise. Half an hour would be better in many respects than a whole hour, but then you come to the difficulty of the complication of railway time tables, and therefore it seems to me it must be one hour or no further extension. The necessity for saving light is so very great that I hope the Government will consider this question, and I believe that the drawback which I have pointed out would not be very great, provided that Ireland could be excluded from the operation of the second hour.

§ VISCOUNT SANDHURST
My Lords, I quite appreciate the spirit in which my noble friend has asked this Question, but 1087 I am not certain, although he may think he would secure a greater measure of labour by the extra hour, whether he is quite clear in his mind that he would secure an equal amount of efficient labour by the process he suggests. My noble friend is no doubt aware that this whole subject was considered by a Departmental Committee, and in their Report this sentence is to be found— As to the extent of the variation from normal time, we have received only a very few suggestions for any departure from the plan adopted last year—viz., a variation of one hour throughout the whole period, which has the paramount advantage of complete simplicity. Any system of graded variations introduces an element of complication and would be bound, we think, to lead to inconvenience and confusion. We are also convinced that the adoption of a greater variation than one hour, over the period during which we have recommended that Summer Time should be operative, would be unsuitable for this country. The question was again considered, as no doubt my noble friend recollects, this year when an inquiry was held by a Committee appointed in regard to the great importance of saving coal. The conclusion that this body arrived at was that the change itself would not result in substantial saving of artificial light or fuel.
Some of the disadvantages are that in present summer time hours the sun rises at 4.50 instead of 3.50, and sets at 9.4 instead of 8.4. That is to say, it is light till nearly if not quite ten o'clock at that date. That is just about the period which my noble friend mentioned in his Question. But by ten o'clock those who have to rise very early are probably in bed, and no material economy in lighting would be effected. Then a direct disadvantage was alluded to, I think, by my noble friend Lord Rathcreedan—or probably it was the noble Lord below the gangway—in regard to agriculture. I am sorry to say I am no authority whatever on agriculture, but I think it is generally held that the hours could not be altered again without very considerable difficulties arising. I may, perhaps, remind your Lordships that these difficulties were put forward by the agricultural community as a reason for not enforcing the change when it took place two years ago. Supposing you put the clock an hour earlier, one must remember that there is a good deal to be done in the early morning. Horses have to be fed, and in too many cases farm men, team men, may have to walk some considerable way to their work; so that there are excellent 1088 grounds for considering that in their case the proposal would not be convenient. As regards industrials, perhaps it may apply still more. Many whose vocations would compel them to get up very early, probably indeed before daylight, would have to go to bed when it was still light. There was a considerable amount of grumbling or dissatisfaction when the present system was brought about. It was said that it would be very difficult to get to sleep in the daylight. In fact, there seemed to be disadvantages both ways.
Then my noble friend referred to Ireland; he rightly says that the clock has been advanced there. I think he quoted Belfast. In Dublin the difference is twenty-five minutes and in the West of Ireland forty minutes. These differences are worthy of note, and if the suggested change were made they would be more considerable still, and I am advised they would cause considerable resentment. Again, in regard to the Armies now serving in France, considerable confusion and inconvenience would arise if our standard were to be made different from the French standard. In fact, all round it seems that the change—a double change it would be—would lead to confusion and inconvenience.
There is another question which I am sure many noble Lords will regard as a very serious one, and that is in regard to the children. I do not know whether the noble Lord remembers having seen one or two letters in The Times, of, I think, March 6 and April 30, in which the very grave disadvantages as regards children—as to their health, their rest, and also their education—were put forward. In addition to the experts, County Council Committees, and so forth, the children had their say as the letters showed which I have mentioned. In Cardiff in nine elementary schools they instituted a system of essays, which were produced by, I think, some 500 boys and 600 girls, on the question of this early rising or summer time. The boys characteristically were in favour of the increased time, because, while there was more time for work, there was also more time for games and out-of-door exercise. On the other hand, the little girls, aged from ten to thirteen years, were extremly solicitous as to the ease or difficulty of getting the small children to bed and so to sleep in proper time. A County Council—I think it was the London County Council—was so much impressed with the necessity of taking 1089 care of the children's health and also of seeing that the efforts of education should not be thrown away that they caused a very large number of leaflets to be circulated to parents pointing out that in the changed circumstances they ought to take the greatest possible care that their children got to bed in proper time; and if these were not effective it would be seen that, although you could not say the candle would be burnt at both ends—for there are no candles to burn at these hours—there would be very early rising and late going to bed because you cannot get the children in when it is still daylight. There would also be fatigue during the day resulting from an insufficiency of rest.
I may remind my noble friend —I think I am correct in saying this —that this Question was raised in the House of Commons, and that the Government did not see their way to agree to any modification of the existing system. Further, if the existing system is to be changed there will have to be legislation, which, no doubt, would give rise to a good deal of difference of opinion. Perhaps I may say, in conclusion, that the subject has been very carefully considered and re-considered, and I am sorry to say I am unable to meet the wish of my noble friend that it should be reopened again.

EARL RUSSELL
My Lords, I am a very old and confirmed supporter of this scheme of daylight saving; indeed, I had adopted it in my own house in the country four years before it was adopted generally, in spite of the necessary difficulty and confusion of a partial system of that kind. I am sorry to hear the answer of the noble Viscount, although I confess I rather anticipated it. I think we hear a little too much about the confusion and difficulty. We had all that when the system was first introduced, and we heard it for quite a long time after it was taken up and introduced by the Government. Generally, I think in practice the confusions and difficulties largely disappear. We used to hear a great deal about the complete upset which would he caused by this changing of the clock, and how no one would know where he was. This year, so far as my own experience goes, hardly a single human being remarked on the fact that the clock had been changed. It changed automatically, and was accepted by every one 1090 of us the next day without any one noticing it.
What my noble friend has been pleading for has been an extension of one hour during June and July. I am not really in an expert position, like the Committees from which the noble Viscount quoted, to say how great a saving this might effect, but it does rather seem to me that in urban areas it would practically lead to an almost complete cessation of artificial light for all private purposes. If that were so, it seems to me that the considerable release of power in the form of gas and electricity for industrial and war purposes would be a saving worth effecting. Might I make a suggestion to the noble Viscount? He spoke at the end of his speech about further legislation being required if this were to be done. That, of course, would be the case, but. I think, if I remember aright, that the legislation under which we are now proceedings is an Act whose force expires this year. I think it was passed fur only two years, and that it comes to an end this year. Therefore, in any case it would be necessary either to legislate afresh or to include this measure in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Instead of doing that, as legislation has to be renewed anyhow, if the Government were to introduce a Bill and give an opportunity for this matter to be discussed and Amendments moved in either House, perhaps the general sense on the matter might be arrived at.
I am not quite sure, after all, whether this is altogether a matter for Departmental Committees or experts, anal I think it would be a good thing to have an opportunity of learning what actually is the strength of the agricultural case against this after two years experience. If the agricultural case be found to be a very strong one, that would, of course, be an important reason for no further disturbance. I ventured to prophesy, in speaking upon the Bill on its first introduction, when Lord Balfour of Burleigh opposed it from this Bench, that probably after a year or two years experience every one would be so much in favour of it that it would meet with no further opposition. If the Bill, instead of being continued, was re-introduced an opportunity for discussion would be afforded and an expression of opinion in both Houses obtained. If that were done, and ample time given to the passage of the Bill, I think the real sense of the community would be ascertained, and it 1091 might be discovered whether it would not be practicable to make the second change suggested by my noble friend. I doubt whether there are any real grounds of difficulty against it, and I believe there are reasons of saving in favour of it. How strong the force of these various reasons is can only be ascertained by representations from all those interested, and these could be very well ascertained in Parliament during the progress of a Bill.