HL Deb 22 May 1989 vol 508 cc71-80

7.3 p.m.

Earl Ferrers rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 18th April [16th Report from the Joint Committee.].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th April.

This draft order, which has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and which has been approved by affirmative resolution in another place, is uncontroversial, as its purpose is to extend for a further three years—that is, from 1990 to 1992 inclusive—the existing arrangements for the starting, and ending, of summer time.

It will mean that, as in previous years, summer time will start at one a.m. Greenwich Mean Time on the last Sunday in March and end at one a.m. Greenwich Mean Time on the Sunday after the fourth Saturday in October. The dates in 1990, will be 25th March to 28th October. In 1991, they will be 31st March to 27th October. In 1992 they will be 29th March to 25th October.

All member states of the Community, regardless of what time zone they are in, begin summer time on the same day, but the United Kingdom and Ireland end summer time about a month after the rest of the Community. We hope to be in a position to publish a consultation document next month which will examine three options for future summer time arrangements which secured the most support in a preliminary round of consultation.

The options are: first, keeping the status quo; that is, GMT during the winter months and GMT plus one hour from the end of March to the end of October. The second option is "single/double summer time", which means GMT plus one hour during the winter months and GMT plus two hours from the end of March to the end of September. This would in effect put this country in the Central European Time zone.

The third option would be to harmonise the end date of summer time with our Community partners. This would mean that we should be an hour later by the clock than them throughout the whole year and we should lose summer time in October.

The continuation of the present arrangements for a further three years will enable the Government to complete their consultations and, in the light of the facts and opinions expressed, to consider whether there is a case for change.

I see that my noble friend Lord Mountgarret has put down an amendment to this order which would prevent it from coming into effect. I do not wish to pre-empt anything which my noble friend may wish to say, but I am sure that he will bear in mind that it is necessary to have the order so that the arrangements for summer time may continue, and that after the consultation has taken place it will be possible for the Government to make any changes within the lifetime of the order.

I know that my noble friend is anxious to make changes fairly speedily, but I am bound to tell him that if it were decided to change the summer time arrangements we should need to give diary manufacturers and others plenty of time before this came into effect. It is therefore unlikely to happen in any circumstances before 1992. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not be too enthusiastic in seeking to ensure that your Lordships do not pass the order.

I see that the speakers' list shows me as being the last speaker. But, as we shall be debating my noble friend's amendment and if your Lordships approve, I suggest that I speak after the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret will then have the right to make the final speech on his amendment. I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1989 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 18th April [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)

Viscount Mountgarret rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to proceed further with the debate on the Motion for an humble Address for a Summer Time Order which seeks to make arrangements for 1991 and 1992 in advance of the issue of the Home Office consultation document on the future of summer time".

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the amendment to this order standing in my name on the Order Paper. I think that it is necessary for me to explain that the purpose of the amendment is to reduce the three-year timescale, as provided for by the order, to a one-year extension. Although I understand that that may not be practical because, if the amendment is agreed to, the order as it stands will fall, I suggest that, if that were to happen, it would really not be very difficult, if the points were taken on board by my noble friend, for another order to be laid before your Lordships' House restricting the extension of our present arrangements for summer time to a further year. That is the purpose of the amendment.

The reasons behind the amendment are these. I beg your Lordships' indulgence while I explain why I and many of my colleagues have put this amendment forward. It is unfortunate that for various reasons my colleagues cannot be here this evening. That is why I have been asked to speak. We had a meeting with my noble friend Lord Ferrers as long ago as last April. We made it perfectly plain on that occasion that there were many bodies and organisations throughout the country which felt that a change from our existing arrangements to extended summer time or the adoption of Central European Time was desirable.

Those representations were made by bodies like the CBI, the Royal Development Commission, the British Tourist Authority, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Policy Studies Institute and one or two others. My noble friend was good enough to accept that there was a case to be considered for an extension at least of summer time. Having said that, there is no doubt that there are many people and organisations who feel exactly the opposite. However, it appears that it is necessary for these matters to be highlighted, investigated and debated.

We were assured last April that a survey would be conducted by the Home Office, followed by a consultative document on which the Government could base their proposals.

It is not my purpose to go off at a tangent and talk about the merits or demerits of the extension of summer time or the changes thereof; that is not the subject before us today.

Concerning the preliminary survey in our debate on 5th May last year my noble friend said (Official Report: 5th May 1988, col. 739): We are consulting widely on them and we shall decide on what steps to advise Parliament to take when we have analysed the results.

Towards the end of the debate my noble friend rightly said (at col. 755 of Hansard) However, I think that there will be an opportunity to debate the matter after we have completed our consultation, accepted views and put foward our proposals. I think that would be the best time for debate.

That is absolutely right. We felt that that was the right approach and allowed a lot of time for such a consultative document to be forthcoming. Unfortunately, here we are, 12 months later, and no consultative document has arrived. I understand from my noble friend that such a document will be available for consideration in a month's time. If that is the case, I question whether we are not trying to put the cart before the horse. Why agree to extend existing arrangements for summer time for three years before discussing a consultative document? Why do we not have a consultative document and then decide whether or not we should extend it for three years or change it?

Last year the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rightly pointed out that in 1985 we passed a similar order, which had the same arrangements for summer time, for a period of three years. But last year, as the noble Lord pointed out, we were being asked for a period of one year to be imposed under the order, presumably to enable this survey and the consultative document to be produced. If last year one year was deemed to be correct, which is fair enough, I cannot understand why we cannot have an order asking for one further year this time round. The sad fact of life is that when any government bask in the sun, knowing that they have got into a position whereby they need not do anything, then it tends to follow that nothing gets done. Other things crop up and we all get too busy. I say that not by way of criticism, but it is a fact of life.

We feel that this is a very, very important matter. I think that if the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux, were here he would vouch for the fact that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents have said that up to 500 lives a year are thought to be saved by the adoption of central European time. If that is so, that is a very large number of lives that can be saved. The Government acted, in some people's views rightly and others not, to such disasters as Hungerford. They brought in urgent legislation to try to ensure that such a monstrosity could not happen again. If 500 lives a year could be saved, I question why we are not addressing ourselves to this matter with the same degree of urgency

I hope that my noble friend will take these points on board so that we can be assured that there will be no question of a feet dragging effect: that we shall have a consultative document next month and that there will be an opportunity for this matter to be ventilated. Whether it is agreed or disagreed is neither here nor there. Parliament will decide. However, the issue must be considered and seen to be considered. If a debate shows that there is a desire for change, in whatever direction, then legislation will be forthcoming at the earliest opportunity and not left to the 11th hour and to the termination of the proposed three-year extension which we are being asked to consider today. If such assurances are not forthcoming one has to consider whether or not one should ask the House to decide upon the matter. This is a very important issue and I do not think that it is asking too much of my noble friend and his colleagues. I beg to move.

Moved, as an amendment to the above motion, to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "this House declines to proceed further with the debate on the motion for an humble Address for a Summer Time Order which seeks to make arrangements for 1991 and 1992 in advance of the issue of the Home Office consultation document on the future of summer time"—(Viscount Mountgarret.).

7.15 p.m.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I have the greatest possible sympathy with the noble Viscount who has just moved his amendment. I should like to remind the House of two things. First, it appears that the Summer Time Order is a favourite matter, in spite of its national interest, for business at dinner time. It was at dinner time last year that we discussed this order. I commenced the remarks that I dared make to your Lordships by saying this (at col. 740): 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 repeat that submission to the ordinance. But this is a matter of gravity and national interest: interest in Scotland, interest among people who, as the noble Viscount said, are very concerned with the issue of the prevention of accidents; farmers; and interest among people who like enjoying their light hours when they return from business in order to be with their families.

The second point that I should like to remind the House about is this. As the noble Viscount said in very moderate language, in 1988 we passed the order for one year. I thought that we did that because of the very words that the Minister of State, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned at that time. He said, as the noble Viscount quoted, that the Government were concerned with the various opinions that were being expressed regarding the Summer Time Order. He said at col. 739 of Hansard: 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 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. What is the explanation for the lakadaisical attitude? If that is the correct way of describing it, as I think it is. What is the explanation for an undertaking to this House, as I construe those words to be, that a survey was being conducted; that the reason for the order being for only one year was so that one could, by implication, have the results of the survey before we made our decision in 1989, which year we have now reached? I ask the Minister what has happened to the survey? When did it start? Why is it not yet finished? And if it is finished now, as the noble Viscount said, why have we not had the benefit of knowing the results before we make a decision this time not for one year but for three years?

The last point that I should like to make is the following. As we do not have a termination date for the Summer Time Order which coincides with that of our Continental partners, why are we now trying to provide for three years, including the magic year of 1992, when we are supposed to be one market? I can well understand making it an order that covers the years 1989 and 1990. I can even see the sense, subject to the point that I made before about the survey, of getting on to 1991, but here we have provision for 1992. Is not this an absurdity, and is there not a great duty upon the Minister to understand what has happened and to give us an explanation of what appears on the face of it to be a nonsense?

Lord Airedale

My Lords, I shall look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the very pertinent questions that have been put by the last two speakers.

I have never understood why the Summer Time Orders are always eccentric in the sense that mid-winter does not fall in the middle of the period of Greenwich Mean Time. If we were considering not only daylight saving but also heat conservation, I could understand it, because it may well be that the earth's heat from the sun continues until the end of October, when Greenwich Mean Time begins, and that winter's cold persists until the end of March. However, I understand that that is quite irrelevant to such orders. The Minister said nothing in his speech about heat conservation. Therefore, I believe that we are dealing entirely with daylight saving. Surely it must be the case that the hours of daylight are equal on equal sides of mid-winter. Therefore, why do we have to have an eccentric order introducing Greenwich Mean Time on unequal sides of mid-winter.

The only other point I wish to make is that this surely must be a subject upon which we need co-ordination and guidance from the Commission in Brussels. I would think that even the Prime Minister would accept that this is a suitable subject for the Commission to consider and on which to try to help.

The Minister pointed out in his speech that the countries of Europe mostly end summer time on the same date, but when it comes to reintroducing summer time the countries are a month apart. That is a frightful problem. It is one thing to decide, when winter comes, what your time differences are, but if for a month in the early spring there are various changes and then a month later the times come together again, that is a dreadful muddle and mess. With the help of the Commission I should think that we might manage to achieve some sort of harmonisation on that.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the pertinent questions which have been asked.

7.22 p.m.

Lord Constantino of Stanmore

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment very strongly. There has been a great deal of discussion with leaders of industry and with those who operate airlines, all of whom believe that we should first make the change to bring us into line with our European friends, and, secondly, make a two-hour difference ahead of time. It is important that we consider the matter very carefully. It has been discussed both with the Home Office and with the Department of Employment, which believes that there is a great deal to be done to bring us into line and to ensure the growth of both employment and the entertainment industry.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I should like briefly to support the Government and to congratulate them on their common-sense in this matter. I certainly hope that we shall not go on to Central European time, because we are not geographically part of Central Europe, and therefore to do so would be nonsensical, but if there are to be any changes there must be plenty of consultation and preparation beforehand. I think that that would take at least three years.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made great play of 1992 and the fact of the single market. Perhaps I might remind him that the United States, Canada and Australia are also single markets and have between three to five time zones apiece, none of which seems to impede their highly efficient economic performance.

Having said that, I should like to put a question to the noble Earl. From the explanatory note at the end of the order, I notice that its provisions do not apply either to Jersey or to the Isle of Man, which we are told have their own legislation on the subject. Could he say whether those territories are free to come to different summer-time arrangements from the rest of the United Kingdom should they so choose?

Lord Seebohm

My Lords, before the noble Earl replies perhaps I may ask him one question. If the order is approved today and there is a debate in the comparatively near future which shows that without any doubt the House is in favour of making changes, are we tied to 1992 or could we make the changes before then if they are considered important?

7.28 p.m.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, first I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for agreeing that the Government are doing the right thing. I thought that we were not going to find many friends around the Chamber. I am grateful to him for that. He asked why Jersey and the Isle of Man were left out and whether they could make their own arrangements if they wanted to do so. They could if they wished, but the likelihood is that they probably would not so wish.

With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, I shall come to the details later on, but if we extend the Summer Time Order in the way that we propose, it will extend for three years but at any time during that three-year period we can alter it if that is the wish of Parliament.

My noble friend Lord Mountgarret and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked some pertinent and perfectly correct questions. My noble friend referred to the fact that he came to see me last April and that I had agreed that there was a case for change. He was generous enough to say that I also agreed that there were many people who did not want change, and that this is a vexed subject on which people hold very strong views. That is the reason why we decided that the right thing to do was to carry out a consultation process. My noble friend said that we ought to have a debate after we had concluded the consultations, and he asked why we are having the debate before. The answer is that the consultations have not been concluded. Therefore it is necessary for us to continue with summer time.

Perhaps I could give your Lordships an idea of what has happened. We carried out the consultations in two parts, the first being interdepartmental consultation. That was put forward in two stages. The first was one of five options, the second of three options. About 600 organisations have been consulted and information has had to be collated and interpreted. So I think that even the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would not really accuse us in retrospect of lackadaisical action. If we involve those numbers of people, it takes time.

Having gathered those views, we intend to issue a consultation document on which people may give their views. When that is done we shall be in a better position to decide what action should be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, asked a somewhat esoteric question about the date on which summer time started and the date on which it finished. He said that this was not equidistant between the middle of the year and that the land warms up, becomes colder and does other curious things which affect summer time. In Continental Europe it is true that summer time is three months before and three months after the longest day, 21st June. In this country summer time has gone on for another month. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, suggested that we should start summer time earlier, at the beginning of March, in order to balance October. The reply I am bound to give is that if we did that it would remove the benefits of the harmonised starting date.

Further, the weather in March and October is not the same. Although the amount of daylight is less in October than in March, it is nevertheless considerably warmer in October because the earth and the sea—to continue the noble Lord, Lord Airedale's description—have stored up the summer heat. It is clear from consultations we have had that the hour of evening daylight in October under summer time is widely appreciated. There is no support for an extra hour's evening daylight in March, except as part of the option of single and double summer time.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord Mountgarret asked why we had brought forward an order now covering three years when last year there was an order which only covered one year. Perhaps I could tell your Lordships that traditionally the orders have covered three-year periods. That has been in order to conform with the European Community directives. The fourth Council directive which covered 1989—that is what we had last year—was an interim measure suggested by the Commission in order to enable the Government to consider the arrangements for summer time and to inform the Community of our position from 1990 onwards.

The negotiations on the fifth directive cover the years 1990, 1991 and that mysterious year which worries the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so much, 1992. I can assure him that there is nothing to worry about; it is merely the addition of three years to 1989 which brings us to 1992. During those negotiations the Commission acknowledged that a review of summer time in the United Kingdom was planned and stated that, in the light of these developments and in order to give time to the United Kingdom and Ireland to discuss such a sensitive issue concerning every individual and on which their national Parliament attach a particular importance, [the Commission] proposes to continue the present system with a provision that the United Kingdom and Ireland may finish the summer time period in September at any of the years concerned". Therefore, it seemed to us that there was little point in arguing for a directive to cover only one year when the provision for change during the three-year period was already built into the directive. That is the reason why we have a three-year order now. I can only repeat, which I do quite happily, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, that should it be decided that we wish to end this earlier we can do so at any September during the three-year period.

However I am bound to tell my noble friend Lord Mountgarret that even if Parliament decided at the earliest possible time after the closing of the consultative exercise to change the future summer time arrangements, we have to give diary manufacturers and others plenty of lead time before the beginning of the new time-scale. It is therefore unlikely in most circumstances to happen before 1992. However, within the terms of the directive we can make the change at any time during the lifetime of the order.

I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will realise that the Government are concerned not only to act expeditiously but to make sure that so far as possible we obtain the result which will achieve the greatest degree of harmony possible. Even that is quite a large hope because it is a very controversial subject. When we believe that we are all of one view, we find that others have totally opposed views. We merely wish to try and get it right.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may congratulate him on his artistry in defending his department having taken over a year working on the survey. I merely remind him that the department may learn a little lesson from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who gives the whole nation about three months in which to make observations on very fundamental Green Papers.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, if I am not breaking the rules of order, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, gives the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stick precisely for that very reason. We are trying to make sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, plus others, have no cause to make that complaint to us.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may ask him whether he is in a position to give the two assurances I sought. I asked that after the consultation document is produced within the next month, as intended, time should be provided for debate. If the debate were to show an overwhelming requirement to make a change, the legislation should be enacted or instituted at the earliest opportunity. Is my noble friend in a position to give those assurances?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I think, with the greatest respect, that my noble friend fires just about as fast a ball as he can fire at anyone. Of course I am not prepared to say exactly what will happen because I do not know what the results of the consultation will be. Certainly Parliament will have plenty of time to discuss an alteration, should an alteration be proposed.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, I am sorry that I did fire such a fast ball at him. We are concerned because these proposals have taken quite a degree of time. Of course matters take time and have to be thought through very carefully. We understand that. Nonetheless I am sure that the point has got through that it is an important matter. It ought not to be allowed, proverbially, to be pigeon holed. I am grateful to my noble friend for the charming and courteous manner with which he dealt with the amendment, especially in view of the short notice that I gave, for which I wish to apologise to the House. It was due to circumstances slightly beyond my control that notice of the amendment was so short. I hope that I may be able to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Motion agreed to.