Central European Time

rose to ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will consider adopting Central European time. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before embarking on the substance of the debate, I take the opportunity to thank many noble Lords who warmly welcomed me back after my six-year gap and, more particularly, my noble friends on the Cross Benches, who not only encouraged me to put my name forward in the by-election but actually voted for me. As I turn to this important question, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, for agreeing to have this short debate tonight. As I have no right to reply at the end, I also thank all noble Lords who are going to speak in it. This is not a new issue. As has been pointed out on previous occasions, it is a perennial issue. As recently as last November, in response to a question by my noble friend Lord Tanlaw, the Minister described it as a ““poisoned chalice””. I am rather surprised that he should think that; as someone who has a second home in France, I rather like to think of it as a good quality wine, which we need to imbibe regularly, and that we need to pursue the matter until we get the right answer. So I am afraid that we may return to the issue again from time it time. I have been involved with it myself for a very long time, as have other noble Lords. In 1995, I introduced a Bill entitled the Western European Time Bill. I thought that it was a better name for the Bill at that time, as one can hardly describe France and Spain as countries in central Europe. But I suppose that that is a detail. The main arguments in favour of the change have been rehearsed time and time again, but they can be repeated from time to time. First, and most importantly, there is the matter of traffic accidents. It is well identified now that some 50 per cent more traffic fatalities take place in the school rush hour in the evenings rather than in the mornings, because people are fresh in the mornings and tired in the afternoons. So on the matter of fatalities, there is a well established case for decreasing traffic fatalities, especially among children, by going over to having lighter evenings and not minding so much about darker mornings. Then there is trade, for which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has specific responsibly. We conduct well over 50 per cent of our trade with Europe and most trade organisations are in favour of aligning ourselves on a better and more equivalent time frame. The fact is that British businessmen make nine times more trips to Europe than they do to the United States—a high ratio. It is not possible to reach Paris by train for a nine o’clock meeting; it requires an overnight stop. This would all change if we were on the same timescale and things could be organised differently. I realise that there are many objections to this proposal, and they have been rehearsed from time to time. Mostly these objections come from Scotland. I do not know whether we can go on having the tail wag the dog indefinitely. Perhaps that is a difficult situation when we have a Prime Minister and various other members of the Cabinet who come from the part of the world. Certainly something needs to be done about it. My noble friend Lord Tanlaw has, in this connection, put down a Bill to repatriate this issue to Scotland, as they have an independent parliament. I understand that he hopes that this might be heard sometime towards Easter. I have another suggestion. We could make things easier for people in the north-west if we had differential and preferential electricity tariffs, which would give more light in the dark hours in the morning. This is not impossible. In France, they have a quite different tariff for electricity in the small hours of the morning, in the latter part of the night. This is really an organisational and administrative matter, which produces huge benefits to a lot of electricity consumers. That could surely be achieved in this country as well. I have mentioned this matter in previous private discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. I do not expect him necessarily to be able to comment on that yet, but perhaps he could give it consideration. In 1998, in another debate on this subject, it was suggested and agreed that there should be a review of this whole subject. So far as I aware, that review has never taken place and is well overdue in view of the overwhelming support that this proposal has in many quarters. I therefore hope that the Minister will reconsider this whole matter—which is what I have put down in my question—although I realise that it is more in hope than in expectation.