Central European Time

My Lords, I am delighted to be taking part in this debate today. I welcome the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, back to the House. He has presented some interesting arguments for the adoption of Central European Time. I thank him for that and I thank other noble Lords for contributing to the debate. As noble Lords are aware, the topic of introducing lighter evenings is raised from time to time and we have all heard the many arguments for and against a change to the current arrangements. These usually surface at the time the clocks go back and we are faced with the gloomy prospect of darker evenings. In a previous speech, I described this as a poisoned chalice. In the end, it comes down to a simple debate between those who work early in the morning versus those who put more importance on activities during the evening. Therefore, it is a classic case of a no-win, no-win situation. Of course, any change would have to take full regard of a wide range of factors, including the impact on social and community life, transport links with other countries, health and safety issues, such as road traffic accidents, and the views of the business community and other stakeholders. Furthermore, from recent contact with stakeholders representing both business and workers there is little enthusiasm for change, with some being strongly opposed. The history of change is not encouraging, and I do not apologise for repeating it. If flogged horses are brought back to the House again and again, one must tolerate flogged arguments also being brought back with great regularity. From 1968 to 1971, the British Standard Time experiment was carried out. Continuous summer time—in other words GMT plus one hour—was adopted through the year to test public opinion. Objections were raised by the farming and construction industries and others involved in outdoor work, such as postal workers and milkmen, particularly in the north of England and in Scotland. They experienced difficulties because of the late sunrise in winter. Following a vote in Parliament, the experiment was abandoned. A few years later, opinion on a possible move to Central European Time was canvassed in a 1989 Green Paper. Responses to the Green Paper revealed the divergence of opinion that existed on these issues. In 1996, a Private Member’s Bill proposed the introduction of single/double summer time but it demonstrated that strong views remained, so the Bill failed to secure sufficient support in Parliament to proceed. More recently, Nigel Beard MP introduced the Lighter Evenings Bill on 8 June 2004. The Bill proposed to advance time by one hour in England and Wales throughout the year—in effect, moving to double summer time—and to provide that the power to make decisions in relation to time zones in Northern Ireland and Scotland be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament for connective purposes. The Bill was due for its Second Reading on 15 October 2004, but because it was listed 10th on the order of business, it did not receive its reading. In any case, the Government would have opposed the Bill on the grounds that there was no compelling new evidence to suggest it was worth doing. I do not think that the situation in the country has changed that much from those earlier experiments. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked where the opposition is. It is very clear where it is. A move to Central European Time is likely to prove very unpopular with farmers, outdoor workers and the elderly in the north of England and Scotland, who raised strong objections during the 1968 to 1971 experiment. The adoption of Central European Time would result in Scottish and northern farmers working longer hours in darkness, which has implications for both the efficiency of an important sector in the Scottish economy and the safety of those employed in it. Another group who feel very strongly about that is our postal workers. A change would also have an adverse effect on Northern Ireland because of its land boundary with the Republic of Ireland and the effect on cross-border transport and communication links. I would say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, if he were here, that it is all very well talking about China, but one of the great advantages of a communist country is that one does not have to consult the people’s views on such matters; people simply have to adapt to the changes. I do not think that in this country we should adopt that as a way of dealing with public opinion. A number of arguments are regularly put forward in support of a change to the summer time arrangement. As far as I am concerned, by far the most important of those is that darker evenings increase the amount of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I do now know what the facts are. It is calculated that a change would save about 100 deaths and 300 serious injuries. That is a very important issue, but it has to be put in the context of the other issues and we should not lose sight of the fact that changing the summer time arrangements would have an impact wider than the road safety issue, important though that is. A further argument is that it may be a commercial disadvantage to remain with the current situation. However, there has been no strong push from business to make this change, which would suggest that it is content with the current system. Furthermore, a change could have a negative impact on our trade with the Republic of Ireland and Portugal, for example. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, also argued that a move to Central European Time would give older people more confidence to stay out later with less fear of crime. The truth is that a move to Central European Time would only result in a change in the hours of darkness; it would not shorten them. Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that a criminal wishing to commit an offence under cover of darkness would still do so; he would simply alter the time at which he did it. Assaults and thefts from postal workers increase markedly from summer to winter due to dark mornings, a situation that could only be worsened by imposing extra hours of darkness. Another argument for change is that it would boost the morale and health of the country and reduce cases of seasonal affective disorder. It is very possible that we would all benefit mentally and physically from a change to lighter evenings and that the mood of the nation could be improved. However, the impact of longer, darker mornings should not be underestimated, especially in the north and in Scotland. For some people, they can have as demoralising an effect as longer, darker evenings. We should not underestimate the fact that climate as much as lack of light precludes outdoor activities in winter. An active lifestyle is arguably more encouraged by a warmer evening, rather than a lighter evening. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that those people who run in the morning should also have their rights on this issue. The noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord De Mauley, raised the prospect of saving energy through a change in the summer time arrangements. It is widely believed that a move to lighter evenings could potentially save energy, although research by the Building Research Establishment suggested that energy use would increase due to people leaving lights on all day after switching them on because of dark mornings. However, it is now likely that the effect on energy consumption of a change to the summer time arrangements would be neutral as people become more conscious of the environmental and cost benefits of energy saving. Finally, the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, suggested that if a move to Central European Time has an adverse effect on the Scots, they could be appeased by having differential electricity tariffs. The supply of electricity and gas is a fully competitive sector and tariff setting is not for the Government or the regulator. It is an interesting idea, but I fear that delivering it would prove very difficult. For instance, do we have just one discount for the whole of Scotland, or should the discount be greater the further north one goes? If Berwick benefits, what do we say to people in Newcastle? How long does the discount last—November to March, or just the long winter days? Finally, for any subvention, the money has to be found from somewhere and governments are committed to not intervening in energy markets. With rising prices, I am not sure that people in the rest of the country would be pleased to pay higher bills in order for people in Scotland to pay lower ones. To conclude, although we have heard some plausible arguments for a change, I do not believe that there is a strong public or business desire for change to our existing arrangements. The present position is a satisfactory compromise between those who prefer lighter mornings and those who prefer lighter evenings. Therefore, I cannot see the Government adopting Central European Time in the foreseeable future.