Summer Time Order 1988

HL Deb 05 May 1988 vol 496 cc739-55

7.6 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1988 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 8th March [20th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this draft order, which has been considered by the Joint Committee of Statutory Instruments and which has been approved by affirmative resolution in another place, is uncontroversial in so far as it applies the existing system for determining summer time to 1989. As before, summer time will begin on the last Sunday in March and it will end on the Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October 1989. The order provides therefore that summer time will stretch from 26th March to 29th October in 1989.

The order derives from the European Communites Fourth Summer Time Directive and is consistent with the ordinary operation of the Summer Time Act 1972. As before, the United Kingdom will be an hour behind most of the other states in the Community except between the end of September and the end of October, when we shall be on the same time as them. This is because they end their summer time at the end of September, a month before we do. All states in the Community (and indeed in Europe) start summer time on the same day.

I said that the order was uncontroversial because I think that most people value summer time. I am fully aware that there are among your Lordships those who would like to see more summer time, and that there are others who are opposed to such a move. The Government have commissioned a large-scale survey on summer time, as I informed your Lordships on 12th April in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. The survey asks for views from a wide range of organisations on three options which were more favoured in a preliminary survey which was conducted last year. I do not propose to go into the merits or the drawbacks of those options. We are consulting widely on them and we shall decide on what steps to advise Parliament to take when we have analysed the results.

I had intended to dilate somewhat more extensively on the virtues of the summer time order but in view of the number of noble Lords who have indicated they wish to speak I thought it might be more to the convenience of the House if I were somewhat less expansive than I had intended. I shall try to cover any detailed points at the end of the debate should that prove necessary. I seek the agreement of the House for this extension of the existing arrangements while we test the mood of the country as to whether there should be a change to the arrangements and if so to what. I beg to move.

Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1988 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 8th March. [20th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Earl Ferrers.)

7.10 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, the length of the list of speakers not only indicates the great national interest in the question of summer time, but also encourages the House during dinner hour business to have a self-denying ordinance in regard to the length of speeches. I intend to impose that ordinance upon myself.

I have a precedent for that because the last time this matter was debated on an order was in 1985. It was debated on 17th December of that year. I limited my observations to wishing the noble Viscount who was then the Minister a happy Christmas, and wished a warmer summer time for us all in 1986. A speech of no great content, your Lordships may feel.

The Minister is thoughtful when he abbreviates his address to the House on this matter. However, I think we ought to delve a little more deeply into some of the aspects involved, as indeed he indicated he was prepared to do in his winding-up speech which he will deliver in due course in reply to what I hope will be a short debate.

He mentioned the study which will take place and which is obviously most necessary. However, one must mention the options which will be considered in the survey. The first of such options is the maintenance of the status quo. We are of course only being asked, while the survey is taking place, for the period of a year to be imposed under the order, as against three years in 1985. Secondly, there is the harmonisation of the ending of summer time with the rest of Europe, which would mean that we would lose an hour's evening daylight in October. Thirdly, there is the adoption of Greenwich mean time, plus one hour in the winter; with Greenwich mean time, plus two hours, in the summer. That would of course mean the period between the end of March and the end of September.

There are just a couple of matters that I should like briefly to indicate to the House which I believe are of grave concern. The one thing we would want to do when looking at any survey and when looking at this matter in the future, is to make absolutely sure that economic considerations are not the only considerations which we have in mind. For example, there is the question of the quality of living and also the very important issue of safety; that is, safety of our children and safety of old people. I was most interested—as I believe most noble Lords would have been had they studied it (as they may well have done)—in the Minister's speech when the matter was dealt with in another place on 28th April this year; in other words, only a few days ago. The Minister said that the question of safety was very much a consideration. I hope that the Government will continue to look at that aspect with the greatest of care. The Minister said: Several hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Kingston-Upon-Hull, West and for Newport, West asked whether the extension of summer time throughout the year is likely to result in a reduction of road deaths and casualties. The answer is that on the best available evidence it will lead to such a reduction". He then quoted from Chapter 8, page 64 of the review of British standard time published in October 1970 which stated: There is little doubt that British Standard Time has led to an overall improvement in road accident casualties although the crude figures of savings of casualties need to be treated with some reserve. The overall improvement seems to have been even greater in Scotland than in England and Wales".—[Official Report, Commons 28/4/88; Col. 617.] He made the further point that this is very much behind the campaign being mounted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I think noble Lords should note that campaign, having regard to our casualty figures, with the gravest of concern.

We should also note that many of us in regard to the quality of life prefer, on returning from our day's work, to find a little bit of daylight available to us enabling us to have some pleasure with the members of our families. That is yet another consideration. I leave that aspect with the further thought which one ought to have in one's mind; namely, Scotland. I know that feelings there are extremely high on the issue of summer time and the question of the present order and the present state of affairs.

The last point I mention, in view of the self-denying ordinance which I have imposed upon myself, is this. In another place the matter was raised as to the validity of Article 100A under which it was apparently the European view that a directive—a proper directive—could be given in regard to such matters. I noted with concern, because it is a matter which obviously ought to be elucidated, that again at col. 617 the Minister, Mr. Douglas Hogg, said: I am not irrevocably persuaded that article 100A applies to the directive. Clearly, that matter requires further consideration. I most certainly do not concede that the directive is intra vires article 100A. Secondly, the fact that, on this occasion, we raised no objection to the treaty base of the directive—agreeing as we did with the policy included in the directive—does not in any way preclude us from raising an appropriate objection on subsequent occasions and in the context of subsequent directives". I wonder whether the Minister when he replies can tell us whether that consideration has now developed into a decision by the Government as to whether Article 100A is applicable to the directive and whether the directive is intra vires Article 100A. I think it is essential that we should know just where we are going.

7.15 p.m.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, when the existing arrangements for summer time were agreed in 1985 in association with our partners in the European Community, it was for a period of some three years. The present arrangements are due to come to an end this year and something different will be organised for next year. However, there has been a feeling among a wide number of people, including many of my noble friends and indeed some noble Lords opposite, that perhaps the existing arrangements are not entirely what we might like to see.

The arrangements agreed to were imposed in order to try to meet the requirements of our partners in the Common Market and to harmonise with them in so far as it was possible. Therefore, to that end, it was agreed that summer time would begin in this country at the end of March, but we could not accept that we should terminate our summer time at the end of September for reasons with which your Lordships are familiar. Therefore the arrangements were to persist for three years.

However, because of the representations that have been made—and on behalf of many of my noble friends and colleagues I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers and his predecessor for having given us a good deal of their time by listening to our arguments and suggestions—a compromise has been achieved by suggesting that the order laid before the House this evening should maintain those existing arrangements for one further year. We must of course agree to that, because if we were not to do so it would cause the most frightful difficulties with airline timetables, diaries and the printing of many other documents.

However, it does mean that serious thought should be given to what we shall do in the future. Whether we like it or not—I must say I do not—we are one state. At any rate, in 1992 we shall be one state with Europe. We shall have one passport, and so on. As I have already said, I do not like it but it will happen and therefore we must get on with it. It seems moderately logical that when we are on the same longitude, so to speak, as the majority of central Europe, the question of harmonisation with Europe, as regards the time issue, is relatively logical. If it was latitude and you had time zones and so forth that would obviously be another matter. However, in this case it is not so. Therefore, for that reason—no doubt, noble Lords may well have others—this seems to be an opportunity for the Government to take on board the representations which have been made to them about seriously considering how far they can harmonise with Europe.

If we were to extend summer time by bringing forward the clock change from the end of March to the beginning of February, that would be sensible, because the shortest day, I believe, is 21st December. That is only six weeks after the clocks change at the end of October and yet, lo and behold, the clocks are not changed again until March, which is three months after the winter solstice. There is therefore an imbalance, which probably does not make sense. Perhaps that point could be looked at. It is a sensible opportunity to consider harmonising with Europe and adopting central European time.

The disadvantages rather than the advantages, must be brought out. I admit that there would be about six to eight weeks in the winter when it would be pretty dark in the morning. That we agree about. However, six to eight weeks during the course of the year is something with which we might come to live. We had an experiment some 20 years ago. We are talking about time, and time has moved on. That change may be something with which we could live which would not be intolerable.

It is not impossible to change times locally. Individual employers could change the time at which one starts work so that one could take advantage of the longer evenings. I shall take the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and impose a self-denying ordinance. I am conscious that those who live in the far north of Scotland will be opposed, root and branch, to any extension of summer time. I suspect that if they were given the option they would prefer to see what I call double Greenwich meantime and put the whole thing back an hour. The proposal would be opposed in Scotland. I understand that. I find it difficult to reconcile the proposal with fairness to people who live in the far north.

Having said that, if it is found that it is to the benefit of the nation as a whole—I do not know whether it will be—to adopt central European time or a substantially extended summer time, one must question whether it is right for the wishes of a minority of the nation to supersede those of the majority. At the moment Scotland has different licensing hours. It will have a community charge before we do. It has different rules and regulations as regards the law and so forth. If they so wish, it may not be impossible for the Scots to have their own Scottish time. After all, they would only suffer the same inconvenience we suffer with our European counterparts.

7.23 p.m.

Viscount Bledisloe

My Lords, I rise not to express any view on the merits or demerits of summer time, but to pursue somewhat further the last point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; namely, the powers or vires under which the Commission made the directive which led to the order. In particular, I wish to ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government regard it as proper for the Commission to have made the directive under Article 100A as opposed to Article 100 which has been its justification in the past.

It would be hard to think of a drier or more boring point to raise until one appreciates that whereas under Article 100 a directive can only be made by a unanimous decision, under Article 100A a qualified majority suffices. To put it crudely, if Article 100A can properly be used for this purpose the United Kingdom and Ireland could be ordered by the rest of the Community to change to Continental time against their wishes. So this is more than being merely a lawyer's point.

In the past, the Commission's directives on summer time were laid under Article 100 which gave power to issue directives for the approximation of provisions of member states where such provisions directly affected the functioning of the common market. It was assumed that those words were wide enough to justify making directives as to summer time, although perhaps the fact that there had to be unanimity meant that no particularly great attention was paid to the question of vires. If one can object by voting one does not have to consider carefully whether the power is intra vires.

However, since the passing of the Single European Act, the Commission has new powers including that whereby only a qualified majority is required to approve a directive. The only thing one can say about Article 100A with total confidence is that what it means is unclear. It probably gives power to the Commission to adopt measures which have as their object the establishing and functioning of the internal market. Of course the internal market is something a great deal narrower than the common market.

It seems highly doubtful whether those narrower words where one has only the object rather than the assistance—the object of the internal market—can include the regulation of our times and our clocks. No doubt the regulating of our times and clocks has some effect on trade. But It can hardly be said that a summer time order has, as its object, the functioning of the internal market. Nonetheless, on this occasion Her Majesty's Government seemingly did not raise the issue in Brussels. When it was raised by the select committee, their answer was that in instances where, in the past, Article 100 had been used, there would not usually be any real likelihood of successfully arguing that Article 100A was improper and, further, that the Commission was inclined to give a wide interpretation to Article 100A.

That answer could mean one or more of three things. First, it could mean that Her Majesty's Government regard Articles 100 and 100A as meaning the same thing. I suggest that it is plain that they do not. That is certainly the view of your Lordships' sub-committee E and its extremely learned chairman. Secondly, it could mean that Her Majesty's Government will defer to the Commission's interpretation, even when they doubt that it is correct. Thirdly, it could mean that there is no great point in arguing because the majority can outvote us whether or not the article applies. I hope that neither of the last two attitudes are those of Her Majesty's Government. Of course, even if outvoted, if the article does not apply, that is a matter they can challenge.

It is always important to be vigilant to ensure that there is a proper legal foundation for the Community's actions. It is especially so where the majority can make a decision against one's will. I therefore ask the Minister three questions. Does he agree that it is at least doubtful that Article 100A is appropriate? Secondly, does it remain open on future occasions for Her Majesty's Government to challenge the use of Article 100A for this purpose, even though they have succumbed to it on this occasion? Thirdly, will he give your Lordships an assurance that the Government will in future carefully scrutinise the use of the article and will challenge anything that appears to be an attempt to use it where it is not truly appropriate?

7.30 p.m.

Lord Monson

My Lords, like most other noble Lords I am not particularly concerned with this order, which I am perfectly happy to support, but with what we are threatened with after 1989. The most ominous proposal is that GMT—Greenwich mean time—be permanently abandoned for all practical purposes and replaced by British summer time in the winter and double British summer time in the summer months.

A more potent receipe for stirring up the antagonisms which stem from the North-South divide can scarcely be imagined. It will be suspected that once again the affluent, urbanised, suburbanised, Eurocentric and Yuppie-infested South-East is bending the rules in its favour to the detriment of the poorer and more rural West Country, North of England and Celtic fringe, condemning the inhabitants of those regions to be deprived of daylight until 10 a.m. in mid-winter.

The alleged justification for such a change is to make life easier for British businessmen. But, my Lords, just consider this for a moment: when it is 8 a.m. in New York it is 5 a.m. in Los Angeles; when it is 5 p.m. in Perth it is 7 p.m. in Sydney; when it is 12 noon in Nova Scotia it is 7.30 a.m. in Vancouver. If European businessmen cannot cope with three time zones when their American, Canadian and Antipodean counterparts can happily manage with five, six, or seven, then heaven help us.

It is in fact the obsessive harmonisers who are being provincial and out of touch with the world as it is in this matter and not those who prefer the status quo. It really is time that advocates of harmonisation took the geographical realities into account. The distance from Athens to Lisbon equates to the distance from New York City to Denver, Colorado, or to the distance from St. Louis, Missouri, to San Francisco. All six cities are on roughly the same latitude.

There is a two-hour time gap between each of the latter pairs, and so logically there must also be a two-hour time difference between Lisbon and Athens. Lisbon and Oporto are on roughly the same longitude as Cork and Galway, so clearly Ireland, both North and South, plus, I would contend, Scotland and Wales, come logically into the Portuguese time zone, particularly given their much darker winter mornings.

The other argument advanced for dispensing with Greenwich mean time is the road safety one. But in mid-winter it gets dark in the evenings earlier in Copenhagen than it does in Glasgow, and almost as early in Hamburg as it does in Liverpool; all this under the existing dispensation. If the road safety argument were valid then both Denmark and West Germany, to say nothing of East Germany, ought to put their clocks forward to the equivalent of double British summer time in the winter months. It is most significant that they have not felt it necessary so to do.

What about the October problem? October is more often than not a good month in Britain, especially the first half, but it is an even better month on the Continent except at the higher altitudes. Most of the Continent enjoys long, warm autumns, which is why hardwoods can be grown profitably in central Europe but not, by and large, in Britain. This being so, and assuming that to have identical dates for the beginning and end of summer time throughout Europe would be mildly useful, though by no means essential, then surely the right course now is to persuade the Continentals of the enormous benefits to their people of extending their summer time to the end of October rather than depriving the British people of their enjoyable October evenings, for which no government would be forgiven by the British people.

If the other EC countries are foolish enough to continue to deprive themselves of the benefits of light October evenings, thereby incidentally declining to bring their dates and ours into line, then I would suggest that we might as well take the opportunity to extend our own summer time to the first or second Sunday in November, a season when it can often be warm enough to play tennis, for example. This would have the incidental benefit of giving our poor, overworked exporters, or rather those exporters who export to Europe rather than to any other continent, an extra hour in bed for an extra fortnight each year.

7.35 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, from the Written Answer to my Question on 12th April, to which my noble friend the Minister of State referred, it is clear that this order, besides continuing the present annual arrangement, looks forward to the three options that the Government set out in that reply for the future. The Government invite views on those options. I am glad to observe that none of the options is reviving British standard time, which was adopted for three years as an experiment, from 1968 to 1971. I would remind your Lordships that the clock was then put forward for one hour from Greenwich mean time and remained at that throughout the year.

My purpose in this short debate, where we are all subject to the clock, is simply to draw attention to what happened then and to express the hope that the Government will be extremely cautious about taking that course again. The decision whether to continue the experiment started in 1968 was taken after a debate in the other place, the Commons, on 2nd December 1970. In a free vote the result of the Division was overwhelming—366 against, to 81. Three hundred and sixty-six to 81! That debate was after two and a half years of experience of that experiment.

British standard time was of course especially difficult for northern and western regions of the country. For example, the agricultural and building industries found working in darkness in the mornings inconvenient and dangerous. As regards school children's safety, most of the concern related to the smaller children who do not stay at school all day, and return home by daylight under any system. With BST they were going to school in the dark in the mornings.

Time is short and I shall not enumerate and describe other objections and difficulties because the Commons Hansard of that debate of 2nd December 1970 can be read. There were many objections from Scotland but objections came also from northern and north-western areas of England and Wales. I should remind your Lordships that Scotland forms more than one-third of the land of the United Kingdom, and that it extends a long way north of the Border.

At the time of the experiment in the late 1960s my home was, as it still is, almost 600 miles north of London, so I have been in a good position to observe and share experiences of the experiment and of other systems. As I return home tomorrow, having flown south the evening before last, when I reach the Border I shall be only half-way. My home is where my constituency was, and I therefore remember how strongly my constituents were against what was happening during that time of the experiment. I cannot remember anyone in that area of my constituency nearby who was in favour of what was happening.

The history of the Bill which introduced BST is worth recalling. When it appeared first in this House in late 1967 it was not proposing an experiment but a once-for-all change. When it moved to the other place I and my Scottish honourable friends, with others, voted against the Second Reading. During its passage we managed to achieve the vital alteration conceded by the government of the day to make it a three-year experiment only. The sequel I have already described—a massive majority in the Commons not to continue the experiment or make it permanent.

The Members of Parliament who voted in that 366 came from most parts of the United Kingdom. They were not simply Members from the North or North-West, and they were from all parties. I cannot go into it now. If I may sum it up in one sentence, I believe that in a free vote Members of Parliament representing southern constituencies found that their constituents did not care very much one way or the other, but they were conscious that their friends in all parties, Members representing areas north and west, found that their constituents did feel very strongly. That, therefore, is my explanation briefly for the huge vote.

Of course, things have changed in nearly 20 years, although the rising and setting of the sun did not perceptibly change in that period. Since then we have joined the European Community. I claim to be an ardent European. There is no time now for me to do more than point out that I was in the Shadow Cabinet and the Cabinet which took the United Kingdom into the EC in January 1973 and was greatly involved in the drive and the work needed to attain that. I have since been identified with moves towards a closer European Community.

However, do we need to have complete synchronisation of time systems with the rest of the EC? The United States is a single market but it retains different time zones. I hope that the Government will look at what happens across the Atlantic. I certainly would not want to make life any more difficult for British industry and commerce, but the Americans do not seem to find it difficult to have times that are different within their own country.

7.40 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is so courteous and charming, and indeed disarming, that he almost had me believing him when he said that this was an uncontroversial measure. I think he has probably already discovered that there can be a good deal of controversy about it. But, as it stands, I agree that the little order we have before us is quite innocuous, although the implications are indeed very wide and serious.

I do not intend to go into the merits or otherwise of the various options for altering or retaining our present system of times. I have to declare that in 1970 I was one of the 81 who voted for the retention of the experiment. Although I could not quite accept them, I understood the arguments which were made, particularly by colleagues in Scotland and in the north of England.

I am concerned about the use of Article 100A. I see that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington is here; he led the Labour attack on the Single European Act. Those who took part in that debate will remember that we tried to point out to the House that this could be a Trojan horse which would remove from Parliament the sovereignty which it has enjoyed in the past and should continue to enjoy in the future. However, we were overruled. We were assured that there was nothing in the Single European Act which would in any way detract from the sovereignty of Her Majesty and of her Parliament. We were assured by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that there was no loss of sovereignty involved in the passing of the Single European Act. It had only to do with the single market.

I was accused of unnecessarily stirring up worry and trouble. But it seems that we had a point because it is the Commission that has the duty and power to propose things and we now find the Commission proposing under Article 100A to impose whatever time they feel will be necessary, not only on this country but on other countries of Europe as well.

This may seem to be unimportant, although, as we have heard this evening, many people think that the sort of time we have in the United Kingdom is very important indeed. But if the Commission can use Article 100A for time on the pretext that it has to do with the operation of the single market, what other items might they put through under that provision? For example, could they not say that because British pensions, and therefore the contributions of employers to pensions, are lower than the average in the Common Market, we should alter our arrangements under Article 100A because they distort competition?

The list of things that could be pushed through under Article 100A is enormous. That is why it is vitally important that on this little issue we should establish the ground rules. The Guardian yesterday carried an article by David Hencke on fears that the EEC single market will be used as a Trojan horse to cut Westminster control over social policies. But in that article the writer says that the Home Office appears to have been in a mess over the EEC decision to harmonise summer time by 1990. Home Office staff, unused to the Brussels small print, failed to note that the time changes were introduced under the internal market procedure under which Britain loses its veto. I find it very hard to believe that the Home Office did not know exactly what they were doing. If they did not know what they were doing, it seems to me that they have failed in their duty to the Government and the Minister.

I believe that the single market will be against this country's interests anyway. But I am quite convinced that there will be many more people agreeing with me who will express their fears of the operation of the single market if they believe that Article 100A provides not for a British veto but for a qualified majority in all things. They will be very, very concerned as to what the future holds. I do not believe that people in this House and in another place want to cede to a bureaucracy in Brussels social and economic matters over which this country alone should have control.

We have already lost the British passport. Many people do not understand that, but we have lost it, make no mistake about it. I know that 107 Members in another place have signed an Early Day Motion asking for retention of the passport, but I am afraid that the horse has bolted. They are trying to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. So far as I am concerned, I am not a citizen of Europe; I hope I never shall be. I owe allegiance only to Her Majesty, make no mistake about that. I hope that people will remember that in future when they are passing legislation in this House and in another place.

I hope that the noble Earl will be able to assure the House and me that, with everything they have, the Government will fight this incursion—because that is what I believe it is—by the Commission into British sovereignty. It is assurance we want, not only about British summer time but about everything else. That is the major issue which is before us.

7.49 p.m.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

My Lords, as noble Lords will know, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, of which I have the honour to be president, mounted a campaign for permanent British standard time. RoSPA's case for the introduction of British standard time relates solely to the road safety benefits. The Government Transport and Road Research Laboratory predicts that 580 lives would be saved and serious injuries avoided if British standard time were introduced in the country. This is based on the results of the 1968–71 study, which showed that 1,340 deaths and serious injuries were avoided each year. The figure has to be corrected to take into account changes in traffic flow, vehicle design, improvement in road lighting, and so on. The main benefits come in the evening when the lighter evenings favour the road user returning home. Since 1971 there has been a whole range of unfounded stories suggesting that the experiment be dropped for safety reasons, yet the statistics show the positive benefit for road safety, and the opinion polls show that most people liked it.

The Home Secretary put forward three possible courses of action. First, keeping the present system would continue the needless loss of life and limb on our roads—580 every year. Secondly RoSPA estimates that harmonising the beginning and ending of British standard time with our EC partners would increase the number of deaths and seriously injured by 100. Thirdly, introducing double standard time, though not specifically asked for by RoSPA, would incorporate the British standard time benefits.

RoSPA launched a campaign earlier this year for the introduction of British standard time, and the support has been phenomenal. I ask noble Lords to read RoSPA's pamphlet Light Saves Lives. It clearly explains the facts, and outlines the response and support that RoSPA has so far received.

I urge the Home Secretary as a matter of urgency to introduce measures that incorporate these road safety benefits. Every year at least 580 people would have reason to be grateful to him.

7.52 p.m.

Lord Vinson

My Lords, I think that we are all grateful that the order gives us the opportunity to discuss this matter (which was last considered some 15 to 20 years ago) because there have been major economic and social changes in that period which I believe strongly reinforce the case for an extension of the existing period of summer time.

First, many elderly people, particularly in urban areas, are fearful of being out of doors after dark because of the rising incidence of mugging and rape. When the clocks go back in October, a curfew on their activities effectively descends at 4 p.m. A further hour's daylight in the evening would markedly improve their social life. I suggest that that is far from being of benefit to urban yuppies only.

I support the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, in regard to accidents. There are of course many more cars on the road. Statistics show clearly that more people are killed in the evening rush hour when drivers are more tired, when traffic densities are greater and, frankly, when there is more alcohol in people's blood.

I am very persuaded by the figures of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. A saving of between 500 and 600 lives is a considerable one. I remind your Lordships of the public interest and concern about the massacre in Hungerford and the Zeebrugge disaster; yet, in this instance, we are talking of a saving of double that number of lives every year. That is an important consideration.

I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Leisure patterns have changed, and the working week is shorter. People would welcome the chance of getting home in daylight to work in the garden and to play golf or other outdoor sports.

As well as the social reasons, there are the economic reasons. The economy would benefit markedly. Surveys by the Rural Development Commission and others show not only a preference for lighter evenings but that, because economic activity levels would be higher, more jobs would be created. Not least, it would extend the tourist season and improve vacancy ratios for the whole tourist industry. Business overall would benefit. Now that we are in the EC, harmonising our working patterns must at least be a sensible option. So there are cogent social and economic reasons for extending BST. Indeed, these positive reasons apply equally to those who have the good fortune to live in Scotland.

In view of the great interest shown in the matter, perhaps I may suggest that the Government find the opportunity for the House to debate the matter at greater length.

7.55 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, in a debate of this character involving as it does the position of Greenwich mean time, I almost feel that I should declare an interest. However, given the fact that I am not a passionate adherent of GMT, it is probably less necessary that I should do so.

In view of some of the arguments deployed not only in this House but in another place and in the press in the last few weeks, it is perhaps instructive to look briefly at the history of the issue. As many in the House will be aware, Greenwich mean time was accepted as a common time system for Great Britain late in the last century. The first Bills introduced into Parliament to reform the system—by moving the clock forward in the summer months—were introduced in 1908 and 1909 by William Willett. However, as a result of our invincible conservatism, progress was blocked. The arguments used against Mr. Willett were that people would be encouraged to stay in bed in the mornings, that children would be kept up later at night and that it would dislocate traffic between the United Kingdom and Europe.

Without the First World War, it is probable that nothing would have changed. In 1916, however, Germany and some other continental powers introduced daylight saving in summer months; and, of course, within a few months we had decided to follow suit. The argument then was that an extra hour of daylight in the evenings would save gas, electricity and oil and thus help the war effort. Since then, of course, we have had some form of daylight saving every year.

As the Government made clear in the consultation document, the issue before Parliament is now a very different one. I think that this debate has demonstrated that, if nothing else. As we know, the European Commission will be putting forward its own proposals on the arrangements in the Community for summer time from 1990 onwards. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, will not be astonished to learn, I do not entertain the same dark suspicions of the European Commission as he does. Apart from that, however, as the Government's consultation document has pointed out, there is a growing volume of support in the country for more summer time in the United Kingdom.

I do not propose to rehearse the various options which have been set out in the consultation document. That was done briefly and accurately as always by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, I must make it clear that I do not consider the maintenance of the present position, with minor modifications, to be a desirable choice. At present we introduce summer time at the same time as our partners in the Community. This year, however, as in previous years, we end summer time at a different moment from the rest of the Community: 29th October for us; 24th September for other member states.

I know that many people with businesses closely involved with the Community want to harmonise with the rest of Europe. So do I. The effect of tinkering with the system in this way, however, would be to reduce the amount of daylight in the evening for a period of four weeks every year. I believe that the majority of people in the country would not find that acceptable. I certainly would not.

As in 1971, I have little doubt, as the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, said, that some farmers and many people in Scotland—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also dealt with this matter—are opposed to more dramatic change. I think that there is a strong argument in favour of more dramatic change. It is a question of judgment but I believe that the majority of people in this country would support that approach.

The option which I favour and which is set out in the consultation document is single summer time during the winter and double summer time during the summer; in other words, an additional hour of daylight in the evenings throughout the year. I do not doubt that such an approach would be opposed fiercely by many people. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was right to indicate some of those who would be passionately opposed. However, I believe that a case for that approach is overwhelming.

First, the changeover date could, in those circumstances, be brought forward to September, thus ensuring harmonisation with our partners in the Community without the loss of four weeks of daylight in the evenings. Even more important, it would mean that British time would be the same as that of every other country in the Community, with the exception of Greece. What sort of sense does it make to choose deliberately to retain different time zones as we approach the major challenges and opportunities that will arise in 1992?

Secondly, there is the unambiguous evidence as regards road casualties, which the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, touched on a moment ago in the light of his substantial experience with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. No one has sought to challenge those figures. As the noble Lord said, 580 deaths and serious injuries can be related directly to this issue every year. That is a formidable number. The obvious reason is that in the mornings people go directly to work and school. Drivers are sober and refreshed. The same is clearly not always the case in the evening.

Thirdly, there is the issue of crime which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson. Dr. Mayer Hillman of the Policy Studies Institute, in his important report on the summer time issue, thought that lighter evenings could lead to some reduction in the number of burglaries. That may or may not be true. Even more significant would be the improvement that that would represent for those who now fear going out in the dark. Many thousands of elderly people find it far too intimidating to leave their homes in the evening. Many of them are even fearful of coming to answer the door after dark. Anyone who has been involved in election campaigning knows that to be true. Although I would not ascribe any single view to a particular body of people, I have found that a number of police officers with experience in the field of crime prevention share that view.

A case for change along the lines which I have suggested and which the Government have set out in the consultation paper would significantly improve the quality of life for many people. It would increase opportunities for outdoor sporting and after-work leisure activities. It would be of great benefit to trade, travel and communications. As I have indicated, I am well aware of the anxieties of many people in Scotland and of some people in the farming industry. I understand their concern. However, I do not share it.

We have an opportunity here both to enhance the quality of life for many of our citizens and to end a system which has imposed a thoroughly undesirable burden on Britain in the European Community. I believe that it is time to change.

8.5 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was very courteous in his remarks to me. He chided me for saying that the order was uncontroversial, as though I had said something terrible. He then capped that by saying that he agreed that the order was innocuous. I liked that change of stance within about 30 seconds!

What I actually said was that the order is uncontroversial in so far as it applies the existing system for determining summer time to 1989. I accept that there are many other problems that can lead to great controversy. We have heard of them this evening. The order permits the continuation of the present system for another year. What happens thereafter is a matter for determination and consultation. That is what we intend to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said at one juncture that the Home Office did not know what it was doing. He referred to the Guardian article. The noble Lord should not take such note of everything that appears in the newspapers. The article was not correct. There is no directive or decision to harmonise summer time by 1990. The only directive is the one which we are discussing this evening—the fourth directive—which extends the status quo to 1989.

I heard with interest the expression of a variety of different views on what the final result should be. The fixing of summer time, in whatever way it may transpire, is almost as controversial as trying to fix Easter. However, we have undertaken a pilot study of views, and we are now undertaking a much broader study and consultation with a variety of different interests in order to find what the general view is. I dare say that no single view will emerge.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether I could guarantee that economic considerations would not be the only ones to be taken into account. I can assure him that all considerations will be taken into account. Even if only economic considerations were of interest to the Government, I have no doubt that the views which will be put forward will include all views, both economic and others.

I do not propose to follow the arguments about the virtues of one system or another. That is for another day. However, anyone can give views on the options to any department or to the Home Office. After the survey is complete, the Government are likely to issue some form of consultation document stating what change is called for, if change there is to be, and there will again be an opportunity for comment.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, gave the House his fairly pungent views on the European Community. He said that he considered that the order was the thin end of the wedge and he wished to ensure that the Government would fight the intrusion of the EC into the affairs of Great Britain. I know that the noble Lord will not expect me to go along with him. He has views which are respected. However, we consider this country to be an important and leading member of the European Community. We are part of the Community. We wish to make sure that it succeeds. We take the interests of Great Britain into account in all our deliberations—

Lord Bruce of Donington

I hope so!

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, did the noble Lord make an intervention?

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I ventured to say, by way of observation to the noble Lord, the words, "I hope so".

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, that is exactly what I thought that the noble Lord said. I was rather surprised that he said it. In fact, we do and we will. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred, as also did the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe (who conducted his speech with reference to that point), and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, to the use of Article 100A. That is an important point. They asked whether Article 100A was a suitable treaty base for the fourth directive.

I think that it might be helpful if I were to put the order into its proper European context because it is a matter of some concern to your Lordships. The Community has long recognised that different summer time dates in different countries can cause difficulties, especially for transport and telecommunications. For that reason the recital to the first directive of 22nd July 1980 made it clear that its objective was to facilitate transport and telecommunications between member states.

The first three directives were produced under Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome. That article provides for the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal of the European Commission, to issue directives for the approximation of laws, regulations or administrative action in member states which directly affect the establishment of the Common Market.

The common starting date for summer time throughout the Community is now accepted; but the United Kingdom and Ireland, through a derogation in successive directives, has continued to end summer time a month later than the rest of Europe.

The Commission put forward proposals for a fourth directive late in 1987, with Article 100A as its legal base. This enables the Council to adopt measures by qualified majority which have the establishment and functioning of the internal market as their object. But since the Commission started the ball rolling rather late in the day, and the Article 100A procedure is more lengthy than the old Article 100 procedure, the Commission decided to prolong the present system for another year, with the continuing derogation for the United Kingdom and Ireland.

This continuation was entirely acceptable to us; but I realise that some noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, are concerned about the principle of use of Article 100A for the fourth summer time directive.

When we were negotiating with the Commission in late 1987, we considered, but did not enter an objection to, the vires of Article 100A. Our main concern was the policy issue—in other words, when summer time was going to end in 1989—and we were satisfied that the fourth directive achieved our aim with its derogation for the United Kingdom. We take the view, however, that this does not preclude our challenging the vires of Article 100A for any future directive on summer time. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, specifically asked me about that.

I should perhaps add that the choice of which article of the treaty is appropriate is essentially a matter for the Commission. It can be amended only by the unanimous vote of the Council or by successful challenge in the European Court. I would not wish to mislead your Lordships by implying that a challenge to the vires of the treaty base would be appropriate or successful. What I can say is that we shall continue to consider future proposals for directives in the light of opinions expressed on this occasion to ensure that the vires of Article 100A is not exceeded.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, before the noble Earl proceeds to another point, and without asking him for a categorical assurance today because that may not be fair, I should like to ask whether he will undertake to report to his right honourable friends in the Home Office and in other appropriate departments the concern that was expressed in regard to Article 100A being used on this occasion. Will they consider the possibility that it may be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to put on record that the fact that they have assented to the directive does not mean that they are accepting that it is a proper use of Article 100A and its powers?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is always fair. He was kind enough not to ask for an immediate response. However, he will receive an immediate response in so far as I shall of course ensure that the concern which has been expressed today is conveyed to my right honourable friend. I would tell him that it has been put on record by what I have said that although we accept the use of Article 100A on this occasion, that does not mean that we shall not on future occasions challenge the use of Article 100A if we think it necessary.

I hope that your Lordships will not think it impolite of me if I do not refer to some of the many options which have been suggested for the future, because the future is in the future. The present order continues the existing system for another 12 months, and I hope that it will have the approval of your Lordships.

Lord Ferrier

My Lords, will the noble Earl give the House an assurance that the interests of Scotland will be carefully considered in his forthcoming examination?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the interests of Scotland are always carefully examined and will continue to be.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, asked whether we could have a debate on this subject. Did the noble Earl answer that point?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I can only answer that question with the leave of the House because I think that I have already made more than my fair share of speeches. I did not answer that point. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is quite right. It is of course a matter for the usual channels. My noble friend may put down an Unstarred Question if he wishes. However, I think that there will be an opportunity to debate the matter after we have completed our consultation, accepted views and put forward our proposals. I think that would be the best time for a debate.

On Question, Motion agreed to.