USA, Canada & Europe: Clocks on Daylight Saving / Summer Time (UK on BST)
GreenwichMeanTime.com
Greenwich-Mean-Time.ca
|
|
USA, Canada & Europe: Clocks on Daylight Saving / Summer Time (UK on BST) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
GreenwichMeanTime.com
|
|
|
Feedback |
|
|
|||
|
Parliament - The House of LordsLighter Evenings (Experiment) Bill - Committee Stage
House of Lords: Thursday, 20 April 2006 13:37 GMT (14:27 BST)Lighter Evenings (Experiment) Bill [HL]
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly. [The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Haskel) in the Chair.] Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.Clause 4 [Amendment of Scotland Act 1998]: Lord Tanlaw moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 18, leave out "decision of whether to bring into force in Scotland" and insert "subject-matter of" The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 2 and 5. They are basically technical amendments suggested by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that has reported on the Bill. I shall roughly summarise paragraph 18 of its 12th Report of this Session, which will give the reasons. It states: "The commencement power in Scotland and Northern Ireland (when the Assembly is not suspended) is given not to the Scottish Ministers or a Northern Ireland Department but to the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly themselves, bodies charged with making primary legislation of their own within devolved areas". This is a novel provision and reflects the fact brought out in the Explanatory Notes that whether the provisions will be brought into force at all for Scotland and Northern Ireland is something on which the policy decision is expected to be taken by the relevant national parliament or assembly. In accordance with the usual constitutional arrangements, leaving the policy decision on an experimental period to them could be achieved by ensuring without doing any more that the subject matter of the Bill is a devolved matter. So far as the committee is aware, it would be unprecedented for the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly to be given powers to commence an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament, which is why it is drawing attention to the amendments. So even though this is creating a precedent, it does not make it impossible; above all, it makes it workable for the devolved assemblies to make their own decisions on whether they wish to take part in the experiment and when they wish to take part in the experiment covered under the Bill. I beg to move. Lord McKenzie of Luton: It falls to me to set out the Government's position on the amendments. Noble Lords will be aware of the history of the issue, which was reviewed by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury at Second Reading last month. He outlined on that occasion why the Government see no reason to change the existing arrangements, which we consider to be a satisfactory compromise between those who prefer lighter mornings and those who prefer lighter evenings. Recent informal discussion with stakeholders representing both business and workers shows no strong desire to change, with some being strongly opposed to change. I do not propose to repeat in detail or revisit what was said at Second Reading other than to stress that the Government have strong reservations about the Bill. Notwithstanding those reservations, convention dictates that the Government will treat the Bill in a neutral way when any voting is involved in your Lordships' House, and that will be our approach. The effect of the amendments would to be to cause the Bill to be applicable only to England and Wales, leaving Scotland and Northern Ireland to make whatever arrangements if any deemed appropriate in light of the Bill. The amendment to Clause 4 is a response to the comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which expressed the view as has been explained by the noble Lord that devolving powers to bodies charged with making primary legislation is better achieved by ensuring that the Bill's subject matter is a devolved matter rather than just the decision of whether and when to bring a provision into force. We accept that the amendment achieves that end, but the subject matter of the Bill should remain a reserved, not a devolved matter. These are already devolved matters for Northern Ireland. The amendments preserve the prospect of all or any of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales not participating in the experiment or participating over a different period with the possibility therefore of different parts of the UK being in different time zones. Should such an outcome arise, clearly difficulties would ensue, and there would undoubtedly be a significant level of inconvenience and disruption over a range of areas. We will discuss that matter shortly in relation to another amendment. There is an additional complication for Northern Ireland: if it changed to allying with England, it would cease to be in the same time zone as the Republic of Ireland. In summary, these amendments do not give the Government any greater comfort on the Bill. On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.Clause 5 [Short title, commencement and extent]: Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 1A: Page 2, line 4, leave out "2006" and insert "2008" The noble Lord said: As I argued on Second Reading, if there are enough people in this country who want to sacrifice lighter mornings in favour of lighter evenings, in most cases there is nothing to stop them collectively in conjunction with employers, if they are employed—if they are self-employed they do not need to consult anyone—deciding to rearrange their working day so as to start work earlier and finish work earlier so as to give them more hours of daylight after they finish work, as most people on the Continent of Europe already do and have done for many years. There is no cultural imperative that decrees that the British should start and finish work up to an hour later than most other nationalities; it is simply a convention and conventions can be modified. It is surely far better to try to alter the hours of work on a voluntary basis for those who want to do so for two years or so, rather than switching Wolverhampton and Weston-super-Mare into the same time zone as Warsaw, where the sun rises approximately one and a half hours earlier than it does here. This amendment would give more time for people to experiment, for those who want to—it would of course have to be done collectively—with modest alterations to their working hours. If successful, the Bill's provisions would never need to be brought into force and a suitable amendment would have to be introduced on Report to provide for that possibility. I beg to move. Lord Jopling: The noble Lord's amendment is in many ways similar to my Amendment No. 3. All I will say at this stage is that I am particularly keen in a few moments to move Amendment No. 4, which is extremely important. I certainly support what the noble Lord said in moving the amendment. If we are to have this experiment, I would much prefer that it was for one year rather than three years, but I will come to that in a few moments. Lord McKenzie of Luton: I repeat that this amendment also does not give us any greater comfort on the Bill. I add that there is nothing at the moment to stop people experimenting with changed working arrangements and it does not require the Bill to facilitate that. Lord Tanlaw: I also do not feel happy with the amendment. It may be worth saying that I have been advised by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents that it takes at least three years to accumulate data to find out which is the better—lighter evenings or lighter mornings. This is the reason why the full period of three years has been mentioned, which I will certainly wish to stick to. Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for his support. I see the merits in his amendments. It is better to try the voluntary route first rather than rushing into the compulsory one, as my noble friend Lord Tanlaw proposes. However, this is not my preferred amendment: I shall return to the matter in a moment. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Lord Tanlaw moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 7, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d). On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 3 not moved.] Lord Jopling moved Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 13, at end insert— "( ) This Act shall come into force only if a commencement date has been appointed in all of the cases in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2)." The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee that I was not able to be here for Second Reading. If I had been here I would have expressed my opposition to the reintroduction after more than 30 years of this experiment. I feel a sense of déjà vu because on 2 December 1970, after trying out British Standard Time for a number of years—virtually the same arrangement as that proposed by the noble Lord in his Bill—a debate was held in the other place to decide whether to continue. I think I am right to say that I am the only person still in either House of Parliament who spoke in that debate. I should say in passing that I am only just the only person because my great friend both in this House and from the other place, Lord Gray of Contin, made his maiden speech on that occasion. He expressed his opposition to any continuation of the experiment. All noble Lords will remember the result of that debate. The trial of British Standard Time was thrown out by Members of the other place on a free vote of 361 to 81. One could hardly have had a firmer view on whether the experiment was a good or a bad thing. Lord Tanlaw: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He is quite right, but he has failed to mention what was an emotional charge to that debate, owing to a tragic accident where a school bus ran over a crocodile of school children in Stornoway. That was the main reason for the objection to darker mornings. Every Member felt that something had to be done. It was rather like the dog biting Bill; in my view it was something done on the spur of the moment. Lord Jopling: All I can say to the noble Lord is that that is not my recollection. All Members of the House had received a torrent of letters from people giving reasons quite different from the road safety aspect. I agree that that was a part of it, but it is my strong recollection that it was only a minor concern at the time. If any noble Lord wants to read the debate, I have a copy of that Hansard with me. One can see that many other reasons were put forward on that occasion for voting to throw out British Standard Time. I ask myself this: what, since 1970, has changed? Aside from some very minor adjustments, nothing much has changed. In general terms, the position is exactly as it was. If we were to embark on the noble Lord's experiment, there would be a similar torrent of objection to it. I recall getting a great deal of kudos in my constituency in the Lake District for speaking up on behalf of the large number of my constituents who had told me what a ghastly experiment it was. If we were to return to it, I am sure that it would be equally unpopular. During the experiment, for 67 days between 26 November and 1 February in my own Lake District constituency, the sun would not rise until after nine o'clock in the morning. The constituency lay in a direct line about half way between Land's End and John O'Groats. I recall that my old friend the late Lord Callaghan tried to make out that it was a Scottish issue. It was nothing of the sort, rather it was a very much a matter which offended people in both England and Wales. The experiment caused great irritation to farmers. I recall quoting the case of a farmer in my constituency who wrote to me saying that he had to get up to milk his cows at six o'clock in the morning in order to catch the milk lorry. Having done that, he then had to sit on his bottom and wait until nine o'clock before he could go out on to the fell to look after his sheep because it would not get light until then. Small builders showed how much money they were losing because they were not able to start work at the usual time. A number of parents also complained about having to take their children to school in the dark. Opposition to the experiment ranged far wider than just in Scotland. In terms of legislation, I know that this Bill has no future whatever. I should say with what I suppose is a certain amount of shame that in another role when in another place, I was responsible for killing as many Private Members' Bills as most people you will ever meet. The truth is that the Bill has no future. But before we go any further, I turn to my amendment. I realise that this amendment, which I drafted myself, may have technical imperfections, but that is often the fate of homemade amendments. As the Bill stands, we could have different time zones within the United Kingdom. The Minister referred to this in his helpful opening remarks in response to our first debate. By passing a Bill of this sort, the United Kingdom Parliament could opt for the experiment, but as we have heard, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could refuse to join in. The Bill would apply to those areas only if they decide to participate. Frankly, I think that that would lead us into an absurd situation. We speak of the United Kingdom when we refer to these tiny islands. What could be more ridiculous than having different time zones in the United Kingdom? I accept that this may be open to argument, but so far as I know we would be the only country in the European Union with different time zones. Of course we accept different time zones within the European Union itself, but I cannot think of any country which has two time zones within the state. Lord Tanlaw: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Portugal and Spain have different time zones. Lord Jopling: That is not exactly what I said. I said that I could not think of a state within the European Union where different zones are used within that state. We understand the necessity for different time zones in Russia and the United States, but to have different time zones in the United Kingdom seems a total absurdity. In the debate following the previous identical experiment, virtually no support was expressed for the scheme in Scotland. I have looked through the Division lists for the vote following that debate in December 1970, and while I may be wrong, the only Welsh MPs I can find who voted in favour of British Standard Time were the somewhat unlikely duo of George Thomas and Jim Callaghan. They had their differences of one sort or another, but on that occasion they came together. However, I could not detect any other Welsh MPs within the 81 who wanted the experiment to continue. I do not oppose this Bill for the same reasons that I know some people might do so; that is, that it would move us to European time. I have never been a Euro-sceptic, but I am a Unionist. The unity of the United Kingdom has been weakened over recent years; we all accept that. To pass legislation which would open the door to further disunity would, in my view, be an act of folly. I agree with what the Minister said when he talked about the complications of moving to more than one time zone in the United Kingdom. My Amendment No. 4 would mean that if we were to embark on this experiment—I hope we will not—it should be done only when all four partners in the United Kingdom had agreed to go in together so that we would avoid different time zones within the United Kingdom. To put my amendment concisely, it is all in or all out. Otherwise I believe that the Bill is a recipe for confusion, disunity and muddle. I beg to move. Lord De Mauley: I would be concerned if this Bill were passed without a major conundrum being resolved. On the one hand, if Scotland were to join England in advancing its clocks by one hour, it would mean that those at the western and northern extremes would spend a considerable part of the first half of each winter's day in darkness. On the other hand, if Scotland were able to opt out, it would introduce between Scotland and England all the inconveniences that the change had been intended to remove between England and the continental mainland. Assuming Northern Ireland followed England, it too would have a similar problem in its dealings with Eire. This amendment seeks to resolve that conundrum, at least as regards the United Kingdom. We would also need to ensure that the dates on which the Bill came into force in each country coincided. Lady Saltoun of Abernethy:
I, too, support this amendment. It would be ridiculous and inconvenient to have
different time zones between England and Scotland or any other parts of the
United Kingdom. As one who lived in the north of Scotland, in north-east
Aberdeenshire, through the experimental period back in the 1970s, I can confirm
what the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, has just said. It was quite intolerable; I
was driving my children to school in the dark and picking them up again in the
dark, because we had such a short period of daylight in the middle of winter.
You will never get the Scots, and certainly not the northern Scots, to agree to
the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, proposes. I strongly support the
amendment. My gut reaction on this is that constituents can twists arms on it. Letting them deal with it in the other end of the building would be my preferred option for the simple reason that a great deal of conjecture goes on here. One of our strengths on most issues is that we do not get squeezed that hard or that readily on various issues. I suggest that it is more appropriate that those in another place deal with this issue if this Bill has any future. Lord McKenzie of Luton: The thrust of Amendment No. 4 is to seek to ensure that the experiment would take place only if each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland set a date for participation, and one which would have to be before 25 October 2009, when the Act would expire. As the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, acknowledged, the wording of Amendment No. 4 would need to be changed if it is to be pursued, as the Bill already provides a date for Clause 5(2)(b). I was interested to hear the experience of the noble Lord in the earlier experiment of 1968–71. Since then there has been the 1989 Green Paper which showed a divergence of opinion on the issue, and the debate in 1996 on a Private Members' Bill equally showed that those divisions were still there, with strong views on either side. A number of noble Lords have referred to the practical issues. Just think of living in one place and working in another, or having children going to school in two different locations and two different time zones, or business establishments in two different time zones, or living in one location with caring responsibilities in another. These are just some of the practical implications that would— Lord Tanlaw: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. How on earth can children go from England to Scotland? How many schools go from England to Scotland in the course of a day to check their watches? I would be interested to know. The noble Lord makes it sound as though this happens right across the whole country. Can he give me any number for schools where the children live on the other side of the border? Lord McKenzie of Luton: I cannot quote any practical examples off the cuff, but we are not talking only about the border with Scotland. If the Bill proceeds as the noble Lord wishes, then you could have different time zones with Wales as well. It is quite possible to envisage these circumstances where, because of the lack of a difference in time zones at the moment, people have entered into arrangements—sometimes on a long-term basis—which do not recognise the practicalities that could arise. It is right to take these into account. I should stress that the removal of the prospect of different parts of the UK being in different time zones does not change our opposition to this measure, although clearly it would address an area of concern. Lord Tanlaw: It was a delight and a blast from the past to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and to hear the bedrock of laissez-faire set out in the way that looked after the Conservative Party not for one century but for two. It is obviously still alive and well. This morning, Dr Stephen Ladyman—in Standing Committee A on the Road Safety Bill—said that lighter evenings would save a hundred lives every year. No one has mentioned this. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has set this out, the RAC Foundation has written to me— Lord McKenzie of Luton: If the noble Lord will gave way, I thought I said at the start of dealing with first amendment that I did not propose to revisit every issue discussed at Second Reading. That issue was touched upon at Second Reading by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Sainsbury. Lord Tanlaw: I think this was the first time it had been mentioned in the other place by a Minister; that is what I was told. The RAC Foundation has set out, after much consideration, a letter to me in support of this Bill. The AA Trust has sent a similar letter, also in support. The Local Authority Road Safety Officers' Association, the Institute of Road Safety Officers, GEM Motoring Assist—formerly the Guild of Experienced Motorists—and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety all support this Bill for the simple reason that it saves lives. This was one of the primary points. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, mentioned his former constituents and said that they were absolutely adamant against the Bill. How is that schools such as Burton Morewood School, Jericho Primary School in Whitehaven, the Cumbrian Education Authority, and Gillside Primary Training School wrote me unsolicited letters fully supporting this Bill, saying that the children would really benefit from taking some exercise after school? This also confirms the report by Mayer Hillman, the senior fellow from the Policy Studies Institute, who made the same point. Listening to people here today it appears that absolutely nobody is in support of this Bill. I think they are completely wrong. I can have my views, but the point of my Bill is to create an experiment where the ideas, the statistics and so on that have been put forward in this House can be proved right or wrong. I have taken a neutral position on this issue; the only position I have taken is the need for a new experiment. The Mayor of London has also written to say that sport, leisure and tourism would benefit from the Bill. On farmers, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, says he was the Minister of Agriculture—I am sure a good one at that time—but no farmer worth his salt wears his watch to work. The development officers of the Crofting Commission in the north of Scotland, to take the view of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, are in favour of this Bill. They see clock time as having no relation to farmers' time. Anyone who pretends to be a farmer and says that clock time is important to farming is not a good farmer in my view. He is not a farmer at all. I have had an extraordinary number of letters regarding seasonal affective disorder, known as SAD. A huge number of people suffer from SAD—3 million, according to the association. It has expressed interest in and support for my Bill. We have just had a debate on energy. Yet how is it that no one has mentioned the American or the New Zealand experience, of switching to daylight-saving time? In New Zealand, there is a saving of 3.5 per cent of the total energy. The US Department of Transportation says daylight saving trims the entire country's electricity usage by 1 per cent per day. The Government are about to produce an energy review. Will daylight saving come into this as part of it? I sincerely hope so, and I hope that it has been thought out. The timing put forward in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, is already covered. The devolved governments and assemblies can choose the time when to start the experiment or to opt out of it. Whatever people say, I do not think it would be the end of the world if the Scottish Nationalists took over the Scottish Parliament and decided to have a time of their own. I do not see it as a big problem. People cross from Spain into Portugal without any problems with the time. It does not affect the economy or tourism. Millions of people—1.5 million a year—cross these borders. Why should it be a problem here? Everyone changes their watches when they go on holiday. Are noble Lords saying that that is difficult or impossible? In fact, if my Bill becomes law, they will not have to change their watches when they go to the Continent . I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment and I leave it there. Lord Jopling: My Lords, in view of what has been
said, and particularly in view of the helpful remarks of the Minister, pointing
out that there may be technical errors in my amendment, I think it would be best
at this stage if I were to withdraw the amendment. We can come back to it later.
But, dare I say it, I think the noble Lord has had a good run for his money at
both Second Reading and today. This Bill has no future and the most helpful
thing he could do would be to withdraw the Bill, as I ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. [Amendment No. 5 not moved.] Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.In the Title: Lord Monson: It was suggested to me before Easter by a very senior Member of your Lordships' House that the present Short Title is seriously misleading, and of course he is right. Bearing in mind that we are constantly and rightly reminded these days of the desirability of shunning spin in favour of transparency, I feel strongly that the Title ought to be changed to the Lighter Evenings and Darker Mornings (Experiment) Bill, so that nobody should remain unaware of its implications. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, may argue that we in this House know full well that lighter evenings mean darker mornings, and indeed nearly all readers of what we used to call the broadsheets are equally aware of this. However, I do not think it is patronising to suggest that many readers of what we still call the red tops, and even more so, those who hardly read anything at all, may not be quite so observant. A public opinion poll to gauge support for the Bill under its current Title might produce a much more favourable and enthusiastic result than if the Title were changed in a manner I suggested. The Public Bill Office told me yesterday that it was considered undesirable for any opponent of a Bill to try to force through a change of Short Title without the consent of the sponsor, and accordingly I did not table the amendment I was intending to table. However, I hope that my noble friend Lord Tanlaw might consider the desirability of being entirely open about the implications of the Title and alter the Title accordingly at the next stage. It is up to him what he decides to do. Lord Tanlaw: My noble friend has a very good and interesting point. I left out the dark morning side because I thought it was not necessary. I am quite happy to put it back. The one thing I was not prepared to take out was "experiment". In fact I used it for a reason, and possibly some noble Lords may not know the definition of "experiment", as put forward by Roger Bacon. He was a Franciscan friar who taught at Oxford some 800 years ago. He said, in his Opus Maius: "Without experiment, nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt; nor will a mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it finds it by way of experiment". That is the point of this Bill, and I am very glad for both noble Lords who put forward their amendments that they emphasised the experiment. This is an experiment and we cannot know the answer to it. In spite of what the Government Benches may say, they cannot know the answer to it unless we have experienced lighter evenings. Title agreed to.House resumed. Bill reported with amendments. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland & Wales) and Northern Ireland (UK) European Union (EU) Europe
Regional Mirror Servers: Delivered by wwp wwp.Greenwich-Mean-Time.eu EU time server (de4) Site map Last revised: January 30, 2010 10:41 -0000 GMT Site Map BSTTIME.COM
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
