Lighter Evenings (Experiment) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, on his tenacity in introducing this Bill to your Lordships’ House. I also congratulate him on the hard work and much research which he has done in order to present this Bill so excellently. It is one of the best researched Bills presented to this House for a long time. Not only was it well researched—full of the facts as he saw them—it was also an enjoyable speech to listen to, which is not always the case when someone has to reel out a great number of facts. A few moments ago, I referred to ““tenacity”” because after the short debate that your Lordships had on 26   January, initiated by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, cannot be in any doubt about the Government’s attitude. Of course, it may have changed since then. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, of the sentence with which the Minister closed the debate:"““I cannot see the Government adopting Central European Time in the foreseeable future””.—[Official Report, 26/1/06; col. 1384.]" I am not quite sure what the ““foreseeable future”” is, other than the foreseeable future. The topic was also discussed and rejected by the Government during the debate on the Scotland Act 1998. However, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, feels strongly about this issue. It is right that he should have the opportunity to bring it before the House again, especially at this time when the topic of conversation in thousands of homes around the country will be, ““Do we put the clocks forward or back?””. I know that in spring the clocks go forward and in the autumn they go back, but many people do not seem to know. The second question that people usually ask is: ““Does that mean we lose an hour’s sleep tonight?””, as though that is the most important thing that could ever happen. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, has advanced substantial and credible statistics in support of this Bill, as have other noble Lords. However, I should point out that there are cogent, contrary statistics in opposition to those figures. It is equally difficult to refute the argument about the discrepancies that ensue between Scotland at the northern end of Britain and Sussex or Cornwall in the south, although in a country such as America, time zones also run from north to south: southern California has the same time as Washington State, which is a lot further north. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned that Australia is another example with different times in different parts. During the war I was sent to bed in the early evening at what was a normal time for a child: from what I see with my grandchildren, that does not apply to today’s children. I was able to read until nearly 10 pm without a light switched on. I must confess that I enjoyed that, but my mother was very concerned that I was losing sleep. Despite the arguments that have been advanced in its favour, I believe that there is a flaw in the Bill. The title ““Lighter Evenings (Experiment) Bill””, ignores the corollary of ““darker mornings””, although I listened carefully to the noble Lord. Nevertheless, some people do not like darker mornings. Those adverse effects cannot just be disregarded. A few noble Lords spoke about the need for public debate. Perhaps that is the way forward. I forget who suggested a referendum, but I certainly do not suggest that. Perhaps we need a larger debate on these matters. Parliament has to decide whether the disadvantages suffered by the farming and building industries, and the slight extra inconvenience suffered in the north of England, are a price worth paying for the benefit of fuel saving and the elimination of the many inconveniences of the twice-a-year ritual of changing the clocks. I do not mention Scotland—the Bill gives it an opt-out if its legislature so decides. I have a problem with the ““experiment”” aspect of the Bill. We have already had that experiment, not once, but twice: first, during the war when, as I mentioned, I could read in my room in the summer; and, secondly, there was a five-year experiment in the mid-1960s, which was ended by the Home Secretary, James Callaghan. We have therefore had a lot of experimenting. The facts and figures of all aspects of the proposal are known. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, emphasised that there are pros and cons, which need to be considered. Several noble Lords have said that it would be quite a good idea to have an experiment. However, if, at the end of the experiment, it is decided that the measure should not be made permanent, there would be the possibility of more chaos and disruption. Perhaps we should look to the past until we are able to consider it further. Until such a time, I am not sure that there should be another experiment. Equally, I do not think that there can be justification for the proposal that Wales and Northern Ireland should get an opt out. In theory, we could have a situation whereby Scotland and Wales are on one time, and Northern Ireland and England are on another time. This could bring chaos to business—for example, bus timetables and so on may seem less important, but, from a business point of view, the changes might create chaos. Nothing like this proposal has been seen since the early 19th century when standard time was established throughout the British Isles, instead of towns operating with their own clocks. Standard time was established to enable the railways to operate. Producing a jigsaw of different times would send us back to the Victorian situation before Brunel dragged us into the railway age. Let us be clear: this experiment would not just test the water for three years. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, would also like the experiment to be successful and the beginnings of what he would like to occur. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord on a radio broadcast yesterday. I quote from the BBC website:"““A poll of more than 1,500 MPs, Peers, MEPs, MSPs, Members of the Welsh Assembly and other politicians suggests a substantial majority in favour of the Bill””." I regret to tell the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that I did not receive a copy of his form, so I did not know about that. Had I known, I could have said what I often say about polls: ““Do you know, I have never been asked to fill in one and that I have never, ever met anyone who has?””. However, I realise that in the House today, many noble Lords will have filled in the form. I hasten to say that I do not doubt the noble Lord’s research for one moment. He has taken great care, which has been backed by many noble Lords, RoSPA and other bodies. We would need a major debate in order to decide on a three-year experiment. Whatever personal views some colleagues on these Benches may have, I regret to tell the noble Lord that we will not support his Bill.