HL Deb 24 October 1984 vol 456 cc257-64

5.20 p.m.

Viscount Mountgarret rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the circumstances of the continuation of the coal mining dispute, they would consider extending British Summer Time this autumn, and if necessary advancing it in the spring.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should like first to express my gratitude to my noble friend the Chief Whip for allowing me time to raise this matter in your Lordships' House. I had thought to raise it before the Summer Recess, and it could then well have been argued with some justification that the matter might be hypothetical, as few people of good will could have expected matters relating to the industrial dispute in the mines to have reached the stage at which they are now.

While I am sure that from every quarter of this House and from any other part of the country there is a fervent wish that this dispute should be speedily brought to a close, I feel it might be irresponsible of us not to consider taking some reasonable and painless precautions to go some way towards attempting to conserve our fuel stocks, which are bound to diminish on an increasing scale, particularly if the pit deputies' union also find that it must join in the dispute.

I hope very much that this Question will not lead to a discussion on the merits or otherwise of the points at issue in the mines; nor would I wish to see a general discussion on the extension, termination or otherwise of summer time as a whole as a general principle, as I feel that this is outside the scope of the question at issue. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that some of the arguments deployed in favour of the underlying principle are as relevant to a permanent situation as they are to what I would fervently hope would be a temporary arrangement.

I asked questions on this subject in 1974 and 1979, but unfortunately they seemed to fall on rather stony ground. As your Lordships may remember, we had an experiment for one year—I believe it was in 1972 or 1973—when summer time, daylight saving time or European Standard time, however one may refer to it, was adopted throughout the winter. This led to a considerable amount of objection from all quarters. The Government then decided to revert to the practice that we had been used to adopting, which is currently in force. My questions in the years referred to aimed at seeking to extend British Summer Time for a matter of a few weeks and returning earlier thereto than had previously been the normal habit on the grounds of conservation of energy. I was advised that there would be a saving of only 150,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, which was considered at that time to be an insignificant amount. Insignificant or not, a saving is a saving. I feel that if the situation were to arise as a result of the continuation of the present dispute (which appears regrettably likely to continue) that the Government were to request everybody to carry out savings on however small a scale, they would be incorrect not to set a lead from the outset.

To extend British Summer Time for a matter of some four weeks until the end of November would, as I have said before, be a painless exercise. It would be welcomed by a great number of people, not least the farmers and those in the construction industry, and certainly all people who have their main business activities with their counterparts in Europe. At present we are on the same time as that in Europe. I can see nothing but inconvenience from aggravating the situation by putting our clocks back for no particularly good reason, thus making life rather more difficult for people in the administration of their companies.

I fully accept that there are some sections of the community who would find the suggestion not so attractive, in particular people who live in the far north of Scotland, where, quite frankly, at that time of year they have only about five hours of proper daylight, whatever time the clocks on the mantelpiece may say.

For many of us, until the end of November it is lighter at half-past seven in the morning, Greenwich mean time, than it is at half-past four in the afternoon. I believe it is infinitely easier for the majority of people affected by daylight to go to work in the light rather than working into the darkness. The effect on children going to school should not arise, because by eight o'clock in the morning it is clear daylight by Greenwich mean time but by four o'clock in the afternoon it is almost dark. It would benefit them. If the clocks remained constant for a matter of a further few weeks, that would be of assistance rather than a hindrance. I entirely accept that during the dark months of December and January this argument does not apply, and it would be undesirable to do other than to revert to Greenwich mean time for those two months. If this unfortunate dispute were to continue after the end of January, which I sincerely hope it will not, the same arguments would apply for advancing a new start to British Summer Time next year at the beginning of February.

I have had it argued with me that if the Government were to decide to make such an order it could be deemed to be giving in to Mr. Scargill and running away from the problems. I cannot accept this argument. Indeed, I feel it would have totally the reverse effect. It would demonstrate that the Government are prepared to see to it that we are determined to stick to our guns and are not prepared to submit to what appear to be extortionate and unreasonable demands, and that we are determined to take reasonable and relatively painless action from the outset to meet the inevitable inconvenience that will be caused by a continuance of absence from work in the mines.

I should also like to say that I have had a very wide measure of support both from my colleagues and from Members of your Lordships' House on other Benches. Regrettably, due to the short notice of this Question many of your Lordships who have indicated a great measure of support for this suggestion are unfortunately unable to be here. Indeed, if they had known—and I was nearly caught short—that the previous business was likely to terminate as early as it has, I think they might have been able to be here: but, alas, they are not. But there is a fairly wide measure of support in principle.

I hope that if the Government feel that there is a broad section of agreement among all the parties, there should be little reason why the necessary order should not be issued forthwith. I hope, therefore, that my Question will receive the serious consideration which I believe is its due.

5.29 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this issue, which has relevance in the present difficulties affecting the coal industry. It is not my intention, as indeed it was not the intention of the noble Viscount, to refer to the dispute in the coal industry except to say that we all hope that there will be an early and satisfactory settlement and a full resumption of work.

When I knew that I was to speak in this debate my mind went back to December 1970, shortly after I was elected to another place, when there was a debate in the Commons about British Standard Time—which, incidentally, ran for a three-year experimental period between 1968 and 1971, so it was tried for rather more than one year. I remember the debate very well: it was about standard time, and whether it should continue. I was among the small band of 81 Members who voted for the continuation of British Standard Time; but we were overwhelmed by the 366 who voted for its abandonment. That was nearly 14 years ago, and British Summer Time has operated since then.

However, as well as looking at a number of reports—and, in particular, Command Paper 4512, which was the review of British Standard Time published in October 1970—I glanced through the pages of Hansard for 2nd December 1970, the date on which the House of Commons debated British Standard Time. I must say that I met many old friends among those pages. Some are still Members of another place, others have left voluntarily, others have left involuntarily, some have unfortunately passed on from this life, and others have been elevated to your Lordships' House. Indeed, two very notable contributions in that debate were made by people who are now members of your Lordships' House, and it is worthwhile considering what they said during that famous debate.

They are, in fact, both Scotsmen—and it is difficult to go anywhere in the United Kingdom without bumping into a Scot. In fact, although I was born in Wales, I, myself, have a claim to Scots ancestry. The first name that I came across in those pages of Hansard was that of a certain Hamish Gray, the then Member for Ross and Cromarty, who now graces the Government Benches as Lord Gray of Contin. In fact, he made his maiden speech on this subject—and, if I may say so, a good one, indeed, it was.

The noble Lord was for the abandonment of British Summer Time. In brief, he complained of the difficulties, particularly in Scotland, that early morning workers experienced as a result of British Standard Time, and he spoke of the very heavy extra cost incurred by industry, in particular the building and farming industries. He also complained of the dreariness of the early mornings—I believe it is always dreary in Scotland in winter anyway—which made it necessary when driving to use headlights until the hour of 9.40 a.m. in the depths of winter.

But then, a few pages on, who else should I meet in those immortal pages of Hansard but another old friend, a John Mackie, who then sat as the Member of Parliament for Enfield, East, and who now adds stature to our Benches as Lord John-Mackie. He was on the other side of the argument. In fact, he was on my side, as he usually is and as I hope he always will be. He, like me, wanted British Standard Time to continue and to become permanent. He pointed out that in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, what daylight they lost in the morning they gained in the evening. He also pointed out that, while many outdoor workers disliked British Standard Time, others, especially the old, the young and sportsmen—and there are many of those in this House—liked it very much. He also reminded the House that cows and other stock dislike changing time: they like some permanence; they like things to go on as usual. He also observed that milk yields dropped following the alteration of the clocks. They were some of the arguments. There are, of course, others.

I mention those two speeches because what the Unstarred Question seeks is a return, albeit on a temporary basis, to British Standard Time; and some of the arguments for and against are contained in the two speeches, parts of which I have summarised. As I have said, there are other arguments as well that have to be taken into account. A point that I noted in particular was that during the period of British Standard Time accidents to postal workers increased very sharply indeed, and that is certainly something to which I believe the Government will want to give serious attention when considering the advisability of acceding to the request in the Unstarred Question.

But there is one factor which the Government will wish to take into account above all, and that is this. Would the extension of Summer Time save electricity? In 1970 the electricity boards believed that any effect of time-changing on the volume of electricity sold was marginal, if any. That is a very important consideration. However, the position may very well have changed over the 14 intervening years between 1970 and the present time, and no doubt the Government will have much better information on this point than the rest of us.

Indeed, the Opposition has altogether insufficient information to enable us to judge the issue. For example, we do not know the present level of stocks of coal at the power stations. Nor do we know what the present or future oil-burn is likely to be. We also do not know what proportion of our nuclear power station capacity is available, or what proportion of oil and nuclear power plant will remain fully available throughout the winter. Nor do we know the Government's intentions regarding the 22 million tonnes of coal stocked at pitheads and elsewhere: that is, whether it is intended at some stage to move those stocks into the power stations.

There is a great deal of information that we would need to have to be able to make a judgment on this which we do not have. Therefore, I believe that the judgment on the issue is one strictly for the Government to make. I shall listen with great interest, as will other noble Lords, to the speech of the noble Baroness at the end of this debate.

5.36 p.m.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I am also grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret for putting this Unstarred Question on the Order Paper for debate this evening. I know that my noble friend Lord Ezra would have wished to take part in this debate had it not occurred on an evening when he was not able to be present. Certainly his contribution would have been of more use to the House than I fear mine may be.

I think that to those noble Lords who were not aware of it, the fact that the NACODS strike apparently has been called off will be a source of considerable relief, as it will be on all sides of the House. I should certainly like to take the opportunity, while not getting into the argument about the coal industry, to say how much I, personally—and I am sure that here I speak on behalf of my colleagues—have welcomed the rational approach to this difficult problem that has come from that union throughout the whole of their negotiations with the National Coal Board, and the use which they have made of ACAS. One can only hope—and I am sure that this will be echoed on all sides—that this will lead to a de-escalation of the situation, and that we can all look forward to a settlement of the coal mining dispute before too long.

That does not take away, however, from the merit of this Unstarred Question, because I think that, even in terms of energy saving as a whole, it is something that we could well debate even if there were not a mining dispute in front of us. There has been some reference tonight to the north of Scotland being a problem area for changes of time. Certainly this has been the case in earlier debates on such subjects.

It is therefore interesting that my honourable friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, Mr. Jim Wallace—a worthy successor to my noble friend Lord Grimond—raised this matter with the right honourable Mr. Walker, the Secretary of State for Energy, on 24th September and suggested that there might be a postponement of the reintroduction of GMT. The Secretary of State replied to that letter from Mr. Wallace to say: You will not be surprised to hear that this subject has been considered by the electricity supply industry in the past. Their conclusion was that no fuel savings would be expected because the reduction in electricity demand during the later winter afternoon peak would be offset by the increase in demand during the darker mornings". I would suggest to your Lordships that that may be true, taking the winter as a whole; but I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, may have put his finger on something about which the Government have not as yet given reassurance. That is that in the shorter term the balancing offset between the evening and the morning loads may be slightly different during a period of three to four weeks between this coming weekend and the end of November.

One would like to hear from the Government, if they are going to resist the suggestion behind this Question, that in fact the arithmetic has been done over that shorter term. We are not talking today, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was talking in the earlier debate in 1971 in the other place about continuing throughout the whole of the winter. Quite clearly, as one gets into the later part of the winter the saving will be balanced; but the idea behind this Question is whether in the short term there is not some saving. I think we all suspect that there may be some saving in this shorter period. If there is, then we should take advantage of it, if possible, for ecological reasons as well as for reasons relating to the miners' strike.

In the Home Office's Review of British Standard Time (Cmnd. 4512), again it says at paragraph 153: Since the change in the hours of darkness has meant darker mornings and lighter evenings there has been, as expected, a shift in the demand for electricity from the evening to the morning peak period. It then goes on to say that if British Standard Time were to be retained—this was in 1970— it is estimated that over a period of time there will be a saving in the generating capacity needed in the evenings equivalent to one power station, representing a capital cost of about £100m. That of course relates to generating capacity, of which we are not short at the moment; so one does not know precisely what the relevance of that figure would be in terms of today's fuel consumption.

The only hint I have been able to get on this was a remark on the BBC's news programme on Wednesday last, 17th October, at 6 o'clock. When referring to the expected (now defunct, I am glad to say) pit deputies' strike, it was said that when the clocks went back on 28th October the coal burn would jump from 1 million to 1.2 million tonnes per week. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, we do not know precisely the proportion of nuclear burn or the proportion of oil burn which is taking place at the moment, so one does not know whether that has any relevance. But obviously one of the people preparing the news programme for the BBC thought that there would be a significant jump in the coal burn when the clocks went back. One would be glad if the Government could confirm or deny that.

I have very little else to say, except slightly to refute what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said about cows not liking time changes. The fact is that cows are very fortunate: they do not have time changes. It is the farmers and the cowmen who have the time changes and not the cows themselves.

I think none of us would wish to see this change take place if it were to put at risk school children, together with Post Office workers and many of the other people referred to in earlier debates when we talked about British Standard Time going through the whole winter. But I suspect that those arguments do not apply to this short term and if, as I have said, there is evidence that there would be a saving in fuel, then I hope that the Government will be able to do something even at this late hour.

It is perhaps worth noting this evening that the European Parliament yesterday came to the conclusion that we all ought to change our clocks on the same day next year, which will actually be a fortnight earlier than the date on which we shall change this year. That should give us pause for thought. Once again, I thank the noble Viscount for raising this Question and I look forward with interest to the noble Baroness's reply.

5.44 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, to the witty speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and to that of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, whose remarks are always of the greatest interest to hear. The information contained in his speech was as interesting as if his noble friend Lord Ezra had been here in person. All those noble Lords are concerned with the possibility of saving fuel by extending summer time.

Let me deal first with the fuel economy aspect and start by making a tremendously simple statement. There comes a point towards the end of October when it is no longer helpful to prolong summer time. By then sunset takes place at around 4.30 p.m. GMT and sunrise does not occur until about 7 a.m. If we were to make it lighter in the evenings by extending summer time, it would be even darker in the morning. Any energy savings in the evenings would be offset by a greater use of energy in the mornings.

My noble friend mentioned the British Summer Time experiment which actually occurred from 1968 to 1971. This was not extended after a debate in another place in which the measure was defeated by a massive majority of 366 votes to 81. The Government have no reason to believe that a similar debate now would have a different result.

In 1979 the Central Electricity Generating Board considered the effects of extending summer time throughout the winter in the light of the British Summer Time experience of 1968 to 1971, as well as of likely changes in the pattern of demand for electricity in March and October of subsequent years. It was estimated that the late afternoon peak in demand would be decreased by some 1,200 megawatts, mainly as a result of lighting-up time being postponed by an hour; but the morning peak would be increased by about 900 megawatts, mainly due to additional lighting as well as to some extra heating requirements caused by the one-hour advance in time. There would also be a more rapid rate of rise from night to daytime demand between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. The electricity supply industry concluded that the potential fuel and cost savings in the afternoons would be roughly cancelled out by the extra consumption and cost incurred during the morning pick-up and peak.

The Central Electricity Generating Board has recently re-examined the figures and has concluded that in present circumstances the effect of extending summer time would be marginally to increase fuel consumption. This arises from the growth in recent years of off-peak electric heating. Some 2.7 million consumers are now on off-peak tariffs and the time clocks for this heating are set by Greenwich Mean Time, since the main demand for it occurs in winter. If summer time were extended, this demand would encroach on the morning peak rather than occur just during times of low system demand, as intended. Clocks could be reset but the industry officials would have to visit each off-peak consumer and the cost of such an exercise was estimated, even in 1979, at around £6 million.

Your Lordships will be interested in the question of harmonising summer time with the other European Community countries. I think it is worth referring to this, even though it was not touched on in the speeches. At present there is a common starting date, and discussions about a commencing date from 1986 to 1988 are taking place in Brussels. The European Commission has proposed that member states should end summer time on the second Sunday in October rather than at the end of October, as in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, or at the end of September, as happens on the continent.

The Government have approached these discussions in a friendly and co-operative spirit, but we are well aware of the strong opposition to any shortening of summer time which has been expressed, particularly by those in agriculture, the construction industry and the domestic tourist industry, as well as by those who value light evenings in October for sports and leisure purposes. Shortening summer time would also mean that, in many cases, it would get dark before school half-term holidays, and particularly in Scotland, as noble Lords have mentioned, it would mean children going home in the dark for a greater part of the year. In the course of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, quite rightly included also the difficulties endured by postmen.

Some of your Lordships may have seen articles in the press today indicating that the European Parliament has voted in favour of ending summer time on the second Sunday in October. I should point out that the opinion of the European Parliament is advisory and not mandatory in this matter, and that, despite a similar vote three years ago, the Government decided that the United Kingdom should retain its late October ending date. A further press report in the same article to the effect that the Government have indicated that they will follow the European Parliament's advice is unfounded.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked a number of questions about the position as to coal stocks at power stations and power station operations this winter. These questions are not material to the main point at issue, which is extending summer time. I hope he will therefore forgive me if I leave that point for now.

I totally agree with the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Mountgarret and the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Tordoff, concerning, we hope, a future, happy and successful ending of the coal dispute. But turning briefly to the implications of the coal mining dispute and a possible energy crisis, the Government are, of course, keeping the situation under constant review. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy said on Monday in another place: The Government will continue to take all the actions that are necessary to see that the power stations continue to provide the energy necessary to protect the life of the nation and to preserve jobs",—[Official Report, Commons; 22/10/84, col. 446.] I, too, am delighted to learn that the pit deputies' union, NACODS, has decided not to put into effect the strike which had been threatened for tomorrow. This is good news. Let us all hope that the negotiations which are to continue tomorrow will result in real progress towards a constructive settlement of this issue.

This has been a most interesting short debate, and we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Mountgarret for raising this topical subject.

House adjourned at seven minutes before six o'clock.