HL Deb 18 October 1994 vol 558 cc193-200

7.42 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch) rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 27th June [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order before your Lordships this evening has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and has been approved in another place.

The order is, in itself, uncontroversial in that it continues for a further three years, from 1995 to 1997 inclusive, the existing arrangements for the start and end dates of summer time. This will mean that next year— that is 1995—summer time will start at 1 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time on Sunday 26th March and will end at 1 a.m. GMT on Sunday 22nd October. Similarly, in 1996, summer time will run from 31st March to 27th October. In 1997 it will run from 30th March to 26th October.

The starting and ending dates and times conform with the 7th European Directive on summer time arrangements. The start date in March has always been common to all the countries concerned, but in the past, and indeed in the current year, 10 states have ended summer time in September, while the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom have had a derogation to end summer time in October.

I am sure that your Lordships will agree with and share the Government's pleasure that in this instance our continental European partners have seen the advantage of the British way of doing things, so that the 7th directive provides that, after a further year, all the members of the Union will end summer time in October—that is, as we and the Irish already do.

Thus, from 1996, while the United Kingdom's arrangements remain as they are, everyone will be able to take it that throughout the year the clocks here will be one hour different from those of most other countries in western Europe.

It is tempting to move on to the wider question of policy; that is, whether our arrangements for time as a whole, both in winter and in summer, should be the same us those widely employed elsewhere in western Europe, inside and outside the present European Union. However, I shall resist that temptation.

As your Lordships will be aware, the subject of this evening's debate is much narrower, and therefore seeks the agreement of the House to the continuation of the present arrangements for a further three years, as set out in this order. I beg to move.

Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 27th June. [22nd Report from the Joint Committee]— (Baroness Blatch.)

7.46 p.m.

Lord Tanlaw

My Lords, on the face of it, this is a simple order. As the noble Baroness said, we should be grateful to our European partners for coming into line with Great Britain, and at our convenience. However, I believe that the order should be seen in the wider context of an issue which the noble Baroness said she was unwilling to pursue: the wider question of our time scale and that of Europe.

On Monday 18th July in the other place, in the first Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, where this order was agreed and passed, the official Opposition asked whether there was to be a debate followed by a free vote on whether the United Kingdom should come into line with central European time. The right honourable Minister of State for the Home Office replied, There are no present plans". Perhaps I may ask the same question of the noble Baroness. In answering, perhaps she will be more precise than she was in her introduction of the order. Will there be an opportunity to have a full debate on the consultative document Cmnd. 722 of June 1989? Perhaps I may repeat the year—1989. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give a clear and precise answer, unlike her counterpart in another place who indicated, regrettably, that Her Majesty's Government had apparently neither the time nor the inclination to debate this important subject.

At a time when senior ex-Cabinet Ministers advocate publicly that Britain would somehow be better off outside the European Union, could the noble Baroness reassure businessmen, at least, who have to deal with the daily realities of European trade, by indicating whether or not the question of single/double summer time is being given the priority by Her Majesty's Government that it deserves? Perhaps the noble Baroness will also state the reasoning underlying the delay in decision making; or is it just another form of what the media refer to as Euro-scepticism on behalf of the Government?

If that is the case, perhaps I should warn the noble Baroness and other noble Lords in the Government about the possible consequences to which that lack of decision making on matters regarding Europe can lead. In an article which appeared in the Daily Telegraph some years ago by (I think) a Professor Thompson—a professor of palaeontology—he suggested that dilatoriness regarding seasonal change may have contributed to the extinction of our human ancestors some 40,000 years ago. To précis the article, Professor Thompson said that it would appear that Neanderthal man was a Euro-sceptic and suffered the inevitable consequences by becoming extinct. On the other hand, homo sapiens were not Euro-sceptics and survive to the present day. It seems that homo sapiens took account of the seasonal changes and had no adverse feelings about moving south into Europe at the onset of the Ice Age.

Today British businessmen face major economic change rather than climatic change. In order to survive they must adapt to European trading conditions or they, too, will perish as surely as their Neanderthal cousins did 40,000 years ago.

Is the noble Baroness aware that many British businessmen now need to know as a matter of some urgency when the United Kingdom will come into line with Central European time? Is the noble Baroness also aware that London will be linked to the Continent of Europe by a regular high speed train service from next month? Does she realise that that will lead to many unnecessary inconveniences and missed business opportunities due to mistaken timings? For instance, it is publicised that the journey will take three hours. In reality it will take four hours. Those of us who have to make the journey frequently, whether by air or other means of transport, have great difficulty in getting to a meeting on the Continent before midday or lunch hour.

There are problems with portable computers. Their system utilities will have to be reset every time they are taken across the Channel and back again. I refer to two rather costly irritations, but other examples have been raised recently by correspondents in the Mail on Sunday and the Evening Standard of which I know the noble Baroness is aware.

I am not content to let this statute on harmonisation of winter and summer time settings, of which I thoroughly approve, pass through your Lordships' House on the nod without some kind of clarification, first, by Her Majesty's Government that this statutory instrument is part and parcel of a planned programme which will culminate in a debate to decide the adoption of single/double summer time in this country.

Alternatively, can this be a subject for inclusion in the Queen's Speech so that Her Majesty's Government can give a firm date for a debate which will, we hope, lead to a measure to be agreed by a free vote? Will the official Opposition support the bringing forward of such a debate as a matter of urgency? Will other noble Lords join me in expressing their discontent at the serious lack of progress in the matter? This statutory instrument should not, in my personal view, be passed through your Lordships' House on its own, unless it can be clearly shown that it is a necessary last step towards a debate followed by a Bill to integrate our timescale with the continent of Europe.

If your Lordships' House votes to delay the statutory instrument, no harm will be done because the order before us will not come into effect until next year anyway, as the noble Baroness said. An enforced delay by your Lordships' House will, on the other hand, have no other effect but to send a clear message to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union that many people in this country are extremely unhappy with the slow progress of Her Majesty's Government's decision-making on this important subject.

Surely the noble Baroness who is to reply must recognise that to remain undecided on the implementation of single/double summer time benefits no one. From the evidence so far submitted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, it will even endanger the lives of children and senior citizens unnecessarily during the forthcoming winter months.

Have we not reached a stage in European history when the leaders of our country should stop looking backwards in time and start looking forward to the future by recognising the need to harmonise the different timescales currently in operation between Britain and the continent of Europe?

7.51 p.m.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, I ask the indulgence of your Lordships because I am afraid that I overlooked the fact that one is expected to put one's name down to speak on an order of this kind. After all the years I have been here, I find myself very remiss but I hope that I may make one or two observations.

I strongly support the order, and to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, it might be observed that the Europeans wish to harmonise at a date which we already have for the changeover of our clocks. That must be a step in the right direction, otherwise we would lose the month of October before the clocks change. However, we are debating an order and this is not the moment to debate the quantum of the subject of what kind of time we adopt.

I wish to ask my noble friend a question, referring back to the 1989 consultative document. Three years ago, when the present summer time order was in force, I asked my noble friend Lord Astor a question and received the reply that a public hearing on the matter would be held after the summer break. So far as I am aware, that was not done and I should like to know why. I asked a similar question to the one raised by the noble Lord, specifically when the Government would make provision for a Bill in our House on the subject of the Green Paper because it is important for the matter to be cleared up and a decision reached. My noble friend Lord Astor also said that the Government would keep in close touch with developments and report back. That has not been done. Primary legislation would be required. I should therefore like to know why, after two years, no Bill has been introduced. I urge my noble friend to ask her colleagues whether or not we may make progress on the matter and have the subject definitively debated in the House.

7.54 p.m.

The Earl of Balfour

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for asking one question. Article 1(2) of the order states: This Order shall have effect in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Bailiwick of Guernsey". I wondered why it did not include the Bailiwick of Jersey or, for that matter, the Isle of Man. Perhaps my noble friend Lady Blatch will be good enough to give me an answer when she winds up.

7.55 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am delighted to face the Minister at the Dispatch Box, I am glad that she follows me around, although she takes a long time to do it.

In itself, this is an entirely uncontroversial order, as she rightly says, and we shall not oppose it. I can confirm what she said about our position in another place, where we took the view—as we do here—that this is not a matter for Whipping and that there would be a free vote, if one were taken.

Therefore, I am free to say that my personal conviction is that although this is an improvement in the sense of the minor inconvenience of being in tune with the European Community in the month of October but not elsewhere, it does not go as far as it should. What we should do is not be an hour ahead of them all the time but be on the same time as they are. To that extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw.

I appreciate that that causes difficulty to some people, particularly those in the North of Scotland. They feel that the effect on them of being on European time would be that they would have darker mornings. However, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has shown conclusively over many years that to have darker mornings and lighter evenings is likely—I do not think that one could go further than that—to reduce accidents rather than to increase them.

Of course, the commercial advantage in terms of the coincidence of the working day and being on the same time as the rest of Europe would be great. I spend a good deal of my time in the United States where there are different time zones and I accept that with the extension of the European Union into eastern Europe in due course, there would be difficulties for those who are significantly further cast than we are. Indeed, Finland is likely to come in very quickly indeed; however, special provision could and should be made for those people. There would be enormous advantages for us in being on the same time as Europe, and I personally very much regret that the opportunity is not being taken to make that change. I appreciate that it is always a matter of great controversy and that people can honestly hold very different views on the matter. However, it is a pity that we are making only this minor improvement and not the major improvement which would be possible.

7.57 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am grateful to those who made their points succinctly and clearly. First, perhaps I may respond to the brief question from my noble friend Lord Balfour. Both Jersey and the Isle of Man will be dealt with separately in separate legislation, so there is no question of them being left outside the arrangement.

My noble friend Lord Mountgarret reminded us that the matter had been discussed on a previous occasion with my noble friend Lord Astor. When he responded to the question put by my noble friend, the Minister was referring to the European Commission, which held a public hearing on future summer time arrangements in October 1992. At that time the debate was confined to the harmonisation of the start and end dates of summer time. Contrary to expectations, the public hearing did not raise any issues of particular concern to the United Kingdom.

The 7th European Community directive includes the welcome provision that in 1996–97 other member states will adopt the UK October end date for summer time. It is therefore the first development of any significance and I am pleased to note that that has been welcomed by all who spoke in the debate. As noble Lords know, the draft summer time order for which your Lordships' approval is sought today intended to give effect to that directive.

I have listened carefully to the debate and I have noted particularly the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and indeed the following supportive comments by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the wider policy choice between the status quo and moving to single double summer time. The one certain thing about this choice in policy is that it is not easily determined; nor is this a party political issue. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made a very good point there.

Those who advocate the move to single double summer time refer to projected reductions in the incidence of road traffic casualties, and in the fear of crime; to increased opportunities for sport and other recreation in the longer summer evenings; to the potential boost for our tourism industries; and to benefits to business, travel and communications from working on a common basis with the great majority of our present European partners, and with the four states which we hope will join the European Community and Union next year.

On the other hand, those who see the advantage lying with the status quo foresee that single double summer time would inflict national inconvenience in darker winter mornings; worsen morning working for some groups in particular, including farmers, construction workers, postmen and milkmen; and have a disproportionate adverse impact in the North, particularly in Scotland.

The Government first initiated debate about the possible options for our arrangements as long ago as the 1989 Green Paper. We were forcefully reminded of that by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. The responses to that consultation paper did not point to a clear way forward, and since then circumstances have altered, and the considerations have, if anything, become more complex. At that time our initial consultations did not, and could not, anticipate the adoption of a common October end date as part of the status quo. Some may see that as a further argument in favour of our present arrangements. Others may see it as evidence of the benefits of having common arrangements with Western Europe, the best of which would be to employ one time zone, as single double summer time would provide.

A further consideration which carries substantial weight is that people throughout the United Kingdom are fully accustomed to the status quo. It can be argued therefore that advocates of single double summer time would need to show not only that its advantages would outweigh its disadvantages but that they would do so to such an extent that the change would indeed be worth making.

The present stage of the Government's policy is, therefore, to weigh carefully the pros and cons of the status quo and single double summer time respectively. I realise that that will be disappointing, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who asked me to be forthright, unequivocal and straightforward about this, and to other noble Lords who have spoken who had hoped that the green light might be given for early legislation for a move to single double summer time.

However, as my noble friend Lord Mountgarret said, tonight is not the night for this debate. This issue will be kept under review, but I must now bring noble Lords back to the subject on the Order Paper. I have noted what has been said in the course of the debate, and I welcome, of course, the move of our continental partners to an October date for the end of summer time. I ask the House to approve the Summer Time Order 1994.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that the Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

House adjourned at three minutes past eight o'clock.