COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 16 July 1968)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. The Bill as it left your Lordships' House made the decision to institute British Standard Time as from October 27 of this year irreversible. The new clause added in another place provides for the change to be introduced in the first place for an experimental period of three years. The Government recognise that, whatever opinions may be expressed, or deductions made, about the effect of the new time system on different parts of the country or sections of the community, the present arrangements must be largely speculative. They think it right, therefore, that before finally committing themselves to the new system it should be tested in the light of actual experience; and this is what the new clause will achieve. It will thus be possible to test whether all the advantages seen in the new system—in the way of improved contacts with continental countries, coordination of international transport schedules, increased opportunity for leisure time activities, reduction in road accidents and so on—are as great as has been expected; and, contrariwise, whether the disadvantages, for it stance to the agricultural and constructional industries, and particularly in Scotland, prove as serious as opponents of the Bill have claimed that they will be.
Subsection (1) of the new clause provides, like Clause 4 of the Bill as first introduced, for the measure to come into operation on October 27 next; but subsection (2) goes on to provide that it shall automatically expire at 2 o'clock Greenwich Mean Time on October 31, 1971, unless made permanent by Order in Council made under the provisions that follow. It also paves the way to the new Schedule (Amendment No. 3), which deals with the provisions contingent on its expiry, should that be allowed to occur.
Under subsection (3) the substantive provisions contained in Clauses 1 to 3 may be given permanent effect by an Order in Council approved in drift by Affirmative Resolution passed by both Houses, in which case both subsection (2) and the Schedule may be repealed by the Order as having no further relevance. Subsection (4) requires that any such 255 Affirmative Resolution must be passed before the end of 1970. The effect, therefore, is this: that the decision whether or not to make British Standard Time permanent is to be taken after the experience of two winters—the coming winter and that of 1969–70—but that if the decision is not to do so but to allow the measure to lapse, a further winter will pass under British Standard Time before the actual date of expiry in October, 1971.
The Government are convinced that the experience of two winters is essential if the test is to be a proper one. There might be something to be said for prolonging the experiment, but in our view nothing for shortening it. It should be self-evident that a reliable assessment could not be made from a single winter either of public reaction or of the effects on industry, commerce, education and other activities. The coming winter may be either unusually mild or unusually severe, and that will certainly influence people's reactions. In some industries—such as the constructional industries—there may be need for adjustments to be made to the new time system, and it may also be necessary in certain areas to rearrange school hours. If the test were to be for a single winter only, and it were known that British Standard Time might not survive for more than two winters, there would be less incentive for these adjustments to be undertaken; and if they were undertaken their consequences and effectiveness could not be expected fully to show themselves on the experience of a single season. At the end we should be left still uncertain whether the decision taken—be it for the continuance of British Standard Time or its abandonment—was the right one. Something might be learned, but not nearly enough.
It will be necessary, in the light of the experience obtained from this trial, to make a thorough survey of representative opinion. Such a survey could not be undertaken before the spring of 1970 and could not at best be completed in time for reversion to Greenwich Mean Time (supposing that was the conclusion) to be effected in the following winter. Adequate notice would have to be given of such a change to the public in general, and to special interests, such as those 256 concerned with the printing of timetables or with negotiation of hours of work where these had been changed on account of British Standard Time. Moreover, the electricity boards must have proper notice to adjust tariffs and meters dealing with off-peak electricity supplies. While, therefore, the inquiries could be completed towards the end of 1970, any change resulting from them would have to be deferred until the winter of 1971–72.
Amendment No. 2 is to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 4 as the Bill was passed by your Lordships' House. That subsection provides that the Bill should come into force on October 27, 1968. This provision is now in subsection (1) of the new clause, and the omission of subsection (2) of Clause 4 is consequential. I beg to move.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
After the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had moved the Second Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House almost eight months ago I said: My only regret about his speech was that he did not suggest at all that the Government were approaching this change in an experimental frame of mind. I should have thought that was necessary. I went on to say: I personally think this Bill should be supported, but as an experiment and not as an unalterable change in our social arrangements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23/11/67, c. 1188.] That suggestion of mine was widely supported in different quarters of the House: the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, I remember, backed me up on it. But we were unable to have any effect on the Government.
In winding up the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said: With regard to the very important point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, he will know that if we had any doubts about this legislation or any thoughts that in a year or two we should have to come back to the House and say 'Let us cancel it', we should not be bringing legislation forward now."—(Col. 1216.) Why the noble Lord thought fit to ascribe to me the power to know or understand this Government's mental processes I have no idea. I realise, of course, that 257 he was faithfully carrying out on that occasion the Home Secretary's policy and that he had no authority to make any concession. For my part, I warmly welcome the fact that in another place the Government yielded to the arguments which had been initiated here and were repeated there, that this Bill must be experimental.
I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Stonham feels that this represented disrespect by the Government, but I fear that what he was instructed to say on that occasion has subsequently been thrown over by the Government. Now we have these Amendments, which I am sure are an improvement to the Bill. I am also sure that they will be widely welcomed in your Lordships' House, because I do not remember any noble Lord, in any part of the House, arguing, either on that occasion or during subsequent stages of the Bill, that this change must remain for all the time and that it must never be reconsidered.
In another place the Government have now yielded, and have agreed that after two years it should be reconsidered in the light of experience, and these Amendments will ensure that the new plan can be brought to an end, and indeed will be brought to an end, after three years unless Parliament resolves otherwise. I do not venture to prophesy what will happen, but I think it is thoroughly sensible and thoroughly acceptable that we can now go into this plan of dark winter mornings and light winter evenings knowing that we are not unalterably committed to it, and that the Government will no doubt pay attention to public reactions and to the doubts expressed by all kinds of people who are affected before a final decision is taken as to whether or not to bring forward an Order under subsection (3) of this new clause.
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for teasing him a little about this, but I could not resist it. I think that in fact what has been said in another place has carried out the unanimous views of your Lordships' House—unanimous bar one—on the earlier stages of the Bill.

§ LORD FERRIER
My Lords, having been in a measure responsible for dividing the House on Second Reading, it would be uncharitable of me not to 258 accept that this is a very considerable advance on the Bill as it was first presented to us. I am certain it is right that the Government should have accepted Lord Brooke's suggestion that the change should be for a trial period, a id the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has clearly stated that the proposed period is the minimum required for a satisfactory trial. There will be various roughnesses in it concerning off-peak tariffs whit I will have to be straightened out, and the problem of school hours will have to be tackled. I do not think the development will be acceptable in Northern Scotland but, as I said earlier, it would be uncharitable not to accept that this is an advance, and I look forward with great interest—not without a feeling that I may be wrong—that this may be a permanent part of our lives in the North, though doubt it.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lord, this demonstrates very clearly three things. First it shows that the words of the noble Lord, Lord. Brooke of Cumnor, have the power to reverberate long after the sound of them has died or the ink has dried on the paper. Secondly it demonstrates beyond peradventure the reasonableness of the Government and the fact that they are prepared to consider these views, and that they do not, as is sometimes alleged, ride roughshod over public opinion and fail to listen to it. Thirdly, if I may say so, it demonstrates also the fact that the views of noble Lords here are communicated. I may say that they are very carefully considered, and it may interest the noble Lord to know that I was in full agreement with this decision, and in fact decided it long before it was considered in another place. So he may take it that I, too, am well satisfied, and also that I have no doubt at all that before the expiry of three years—and I insisted on three years—we shall get even the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, saying:" I was wrong, brother. We should continue this."

§ THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY
My Lords, as another of the original protesters against this Bill, I should like to express my appreciation of this Amendment. There is one feature which gives me special pleasure, and I think it may give pleasure to others as well. I notice that if it is decided to drop 259 British Standard Time, this will happen at 3 o'clock on the morning of October 31, 1971, by British Standard Time. I am rather charmed to notice that in the wording of the Bill, looking forward to that moment even at three years' range, it refers to 2 o'clock in the morning, Greenwich Mean Time.