SUMMER TIME (1964) ORDER 1963 (Hansard, 26 November 1963)

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD DERWENT)
My Lords, the Summer Time Acts of 1922 and 1925 provide that simmer time should run from the Sunday after the third Saturday in April until the Sunday after the first Saturday in October, save where Easter Day falls on that Sunday in April, when summer time starts a week earlier. In 1947 an Act was passed which provided for summer time to be varied in any one year by Order in Council. It is in pursuance of the provisions of Section 2 of that Act that the draft Order now before the House has been laid.
Four years ago the Government conducted an inquiry in which a large number of bodies representative of all sections of the community were invited to express 602 their views about the period of summer time. The replies showed that the weight of opinion was in favour of an extension of the statutory period fixed by the Acts of 1922 and 1925, and Parliament has approved each year since 1961 the making of Orders under the 1947 Act extending summer time by six weeks, three weeks in the spring and three weeks in the autumn. There seems to be general satisfaction with these arrangements for an extended period of summer time. But there have been some signs that support for a longer period, or perhaps even summer time throughout the year, is increasing. The Government have an open mind on this question, although they recognise that there are important interests that are likely to be opposed to any further extension, and their views will have to be taken into account. However, opinion on the question does not appear to be fully developed, and the Government think that in these circumstances it would be better to defer for the present the consideration of any permanent change in the summer time legislation.
For the coming year we propose in the draft Order now before the House to continue the modest extension which has proved popular in recent years. The only change in the arrangements is necessitated by the desire to avoid commencing summer time on Easter day (as does the formula prescribed by the 1922 and 1925 Acts) which would happen if the spring extension were of three weeks as has been usual. We propose instead to have a four weeks' extension in the spring which, when aggregated with the usual three weeks' autumn extension, will mean a total extension of seven weeks of the statutory period. Should these proposals commend themselves to Parliament, summer time in 1964 will run from March 22 until October 25. I beg to move.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of this Order. We have seen 603 this Order every year for many years; in the case of some of us it stretches back to our very earliest time in Parliament. I would, first of all, issue a word of protest. I understand that the Home Secretary announced in May of this year the particular dates for summer time. Now seven months later we have an Order in front of this House. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition said that this House was hamstrung in relation to the Order that has just been approved. In many ways Parliament is hamstrung in considering this particular Order.
The noble Lord must be aware that diaries have to be printed very early in the year in order to meet export requirements, and the manufacturers have to place this particular information in their diaries. There are other industries which are also affected, such as the civil airlines industry. They have to produce their timetables many months in advance. In the case of the airlines, they have been able to proceed with their productions and arrangements on the word of the Minister given in May. The House is therefore hamstrung in that, if for some reason the House objected to this Order, we should then find that chaos would flow for all those people who are dependent upon the Minister's word. Obviously the House would be very reluctant, no matter what its view on the Order might be, not to let the Order proceed.
My Lords, I think the Minister will agree that last year the Special Orders Committee asked the Home Office to see that this Order was presented early, but so far as one can see, the only response of the Ministry is to produce it later. I would ask the House to take note of the Report, which will be in their possession, in which the Special Orders Committee invite the House to consider the desirability of more permanent legislation. I am sure the Minister and the whole House will agree that practice has shown that the summer time arrangements, particularly the earlier dates, are very acceptable in the country. I am not yet sure whether the country would wish to go to what would be continental time. But so far as summer times are concerned, particularly in the spring and summer months, which permit us to play sport in the 604 evening, they are very satisfactory. But in view of the doubt which must be in the minds of many industries and businesses, two of which I have mentioned, it seems to me that it would be very much to their benefit if we had legislation of a more permanent nature laying down in advance summer times and winter times.
At the present moment the 1947 Act lays it down that there must be an Order each year. I believe it would be possible very simply to amend that particular provision, if we inserted the words "or years" after the word "year." Then the Government could produce one Order, perhaps with a validity of five years which would give consistency to many of the industries which are affected by the change from winter time to summer time. I hope that the Minister can give us some response in this matter. I am not asking him to go further than that. If he would agree to consider or accept, if he is in a position to do so, the basis that, instead of having an annual Order we could have an Order for five years, then it would be relatively simple, perhaps, to produce a Private Member's Bill to cover it. That would mean that the Government could very shortly produce a further Order extending the summer time limits for the next five years. I believe this would be of tremendous benefit to many industries and to many businessmen both in this country and on the Continent. I do not believe there would be anything to be lost by that gesture; I think there would be much to be gained.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, may I first of all deal with the question about delays? Of course, as the noble Lord says, in practice these industries do accept the Government's announcement, which this year was made on May 31. Or course they are taking a risk about whether Parliament is going to pass the Order, and of course the time might arrive when it does not. But that is entirely understood. It is not possible to avoid all delays. One of the difficulties is that under the Act you can make separate Orders for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and they have to be consulted after the date is announced. In the case of Guernsey, in particular, they insist, before they give approval to that 605 date, on discussing the matter in their own Parliament after the date has been announced. I would only say without going into details that that delay is unavoidable. I admit that departmentally there was a very slight delay of two or three weeks this year, which should not have happened, inside my Department. It did not really affect matters very much, because we had got so near to the Summer Recess that this Order could not have been brought in before the Recess. But I have taken the point that it should not be as late as this in normal years.
My Lords, about this question of having an Order which would cover several years at a stretch, apart from the more permanent alteration which I have already talked about I do not think an amendment of any Act is necessary. I am advised that legally there is absolutely no reason why an Order should not be made in the form which the noble Lord suggests. This has been under discussion between several Ministries—because there are a good many Ministries involved in this, and of course they are looking after the interests of certain sections of the community which they represent—and these discussions have been going on for some time as to whether a longer period would not be better, and for how long it should be. I can give to the noble Lord the assurance that this matter is being urgently considered, and I think it is a reasonable assumption—I can almost, but not quite, give him an undertaking on this—that when this Order or something like it appears at this time next year, or perhaps a little earlier next year, this point will have been settled. We hope that it may have been settled satisfactorily for the noble Lord, although I cannot go so far as to say that it will be. But the decision on this matter will be taken shortly. I repeat that I do not think any amending legislation will be necessary.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
My Lords, it is unlikely that either the noble Lord or his colleagues will be in a position to make this announcement themselves in November of next year. Perhaps I could put down a Question in February or March, which would give the Ministries ample time to consider whether we could make some move towards helping businessmen, particularly, in this matter.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, I think I would prefer, rather than put a date to it, to say that when we are ready to make an announcement I will inform the noble Lord. That is preferable, perhaps, to his putting down a Question. But I cannot at this stage give a date. If the noble Lord likes to put down a series of Questions without waiting for me, he will get the answer, "Yes" or "No"; but I shall keep in touch with him about this.