---

19 Jan 1996 : Column 989

House of Commons

Friday 19 January 1996

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker in the Chair]

PETITION

Standing Charges

9.34 am

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North): With the leave of the House, I should like to present a petition on behalf of the senior citizens of the Darlington Lane branch of the National Federation of Retirement Pensions Associations and others in the parliamentary constituency of Stockton, North. It is on an issue of long standing--standing charges on utility services.

The petition is presented at a time when that issue is revealed in stark contrast--more so than previously--in that vast profits are being made since the privatisation of those utilities and obscene salaries are being paid to people who do no more than occupy seats on the board of management.

The Petition . . . sheweth that those sections of the community who are in receipt of State Retirement Pension and State Benefits are suffering great hardship on account of the increase in the cost of living, the imposition of V.A.T. and the decreasing purchasing power of the said Pension.

Standing Charges on bills for the essential supply of gas, electricity, water and telephone are unwarranted and bear most heavily on low income households.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House should pass legislation forthwith for the relief of Old Age Pensioners and others in receipt of low incomes by requiring the Companies supplying households with gas, electricity, water and telephones to abolish Standing Charges.

And Your Petitioners, as in duty bound shall ever pray etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day

British Time (Extra Daylight) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

9.36 am

Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I have great pleasure in introducing this Bill. [An hon. Member: "Too early."] It has support on both sides of the House, and in all parts of the United Kingdom.

I shall first describe the advantages that I envisage that the Bill will bring to the nation. In relation to road safety, the Bill will undoubtedly save a very large number of lives. That fact is asserted by the Transport Research Laboratory of the Department of Transport, which has estimated that there would be about 2,080 fewer accidents per year, and approximately 110 fewer deaths per year.

Mr. Phil Gallie (Ayr): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Butterfill: I wish to make more progress, if my hon. Friend would allow me, but I am sure that in due course I shall happily give way to him.

Perhaps I can anticipate what my hon. Friend might have wanted to mention--a report from the Scottish Office, which says that, following an analysis that it has done in Scotland, there would be only a marginal benefit in reductions in serious injuries, and a report from De Montfort university, which also questions the figures of the Transport Research Laboratory.

Those two reports have only recently been prepared, and we have not had time to analyse them in detail, but the preliminary analysis that has been carried out by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and by the Policy Studies Institute suggests that the methodology of both reports is deeply flawed.

The Transport Research Laboratory has the largest collection of scientists and statisticians who are permanently employed in analysing the causes of accidents and their nature and commenting to the House and to Ministers on the way in which those accidents arise, and ways in which they might be prevented. I do not believe that any group of scientists and statisticians is better qualified to consider the matter. With great respect to the civil servants in the Scottish Office--who I am sure are people of enormous integrity and good will--I do not believe that their expertise can compare with that of the Transport Research Laboratory.

With even greater respect to the academics at De Montfort university, it must be said that they are not renowned as experts in traffic safety measures. The university's report, which not only refers to road accidents but also questions the alleged reductions in crime and the benefits to business, gives greater cause for scepticism than some other reports.

I find it difficult to understand how the university can know more about crime than the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation or the Home Office. I also do not believe that the university knows more about business than the Confederation of British Industry and all the other business organisations which support the Bill.

Mr. Gallie: My hon. Friend wrote in The House Magazine that all the chambers of commerce in Scotland

19 Jan 1996 : Column 991

fully supported his Bill. That is absolutely wrong. His remarks are without foundation, as checks with the chambers of commerce confirm. Why should we accept any of my hon. Friend's comments about the validity of the reports to which he has referred?

Mr. Butterfill: I wish that I could express my gratitude to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I cannot. The last time that the Scottish chambers of commerce voted on the issue in autumn 1994, they supported the principle of daylight saving. There has been no subsequent vote in the Scottish chambers, although some individual chambers of commerce have voted on the matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr is absolutely correct to say that some individual chambers of commerce in Scotland--notably Inverness and Aberdeen--oppose the measure. However, not all Scottish chambers of commerce share that view. I have received a letter from the Edinburgh chamber of commerce which refers specifically to its support for the notion. I shall deal with business matters later in the debate, as I am sure that there will be other opportunities to deal with that issue.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Butterfill: If hon. Members will allow me to make a little progress, I shall give way some time in the future.

I know that there is concern in Scotland about the measure and I sympathise very much with Scottish anxiety about the road safety issue. I know that the mornings in Scotland are darker for much longer than in England, and that my Bill will make those morning hours darker and longer still. However, I remind the people of Scotland that the advantages already enjoyed by the rest of the United Kingdom are even more important to Scotland.

The analysis by the Transport Research Laboratory shows that, during the experimental period from 1967 to 1971, in southern England the number of accidents decreased by 2.2 per cent., while in Scotland the figure was 5.3 per cent.

Hon. Members must realise that there is a correlation between accidents and darkness and bad weather. Sadly, Scotland suffers worse weather than the rest of the United Kingdom and it has more hours of darkness. Therefore, it is logical that darkness should impact on the accident figures in the way that the Transport Research Laboratory has shown. For those reasons, I believe that the case for fewer accidents is proven.

Miss Kate Hoey (Vauxhall): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all the evidence shows that more children are killed in summer than in winter?

Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is true that there are more accidents during the long summer holidays when children play out of doors unsupervised. For the rest of the year, they are in school, where they are not exposed to the dangers associated with playing outdoors; therefore, there are fewer accidents. If the hon. Lady examines the accident statistics, she will see the clear correlation between school terms and fewer accidents. However, that does not disprove my case in any way--in fact, it confirms it.

Sir David Mitchell (North-West Hampshire): Before my hon. Friend leaves the accidents issue, will he deal

19 Jan 1996 : Column 992

with the question of postal and construction workers and others who work outdoors? They travel to work and work in the dark, thereby increasing the risk of accident.

Mr. Butterfill: I shall deal with the issues separately. I have a letter written by Alan Tuffin when the matter was debated in 1987, in which he says that there is no hard evidence to suggest that there would be any increase in accidents or energy use among post office workers. I shall happily pass a copy of that letter to my hon. Friend.

Dr. Godman: On a procedural matter, if the hon. Gentleman's legislation is successful today--I sincerely hope that it is not--will he agree to send his Bill to a Special Standing Committee to consider the matters to which he refers? At the very least, the Scots would welcome that suggestion.

Mr. Butterfill: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not think that that would be the appropriate procedure. The Bill will go to a Standing Committee, where we shall be able to examine all the arguments in great detail. The House will have many opportunities to debate the issue.

Mr. Hugh Bayley (York): We all know that this is a controversial matter. Therefore, I took the precaution of writing to a wide range of statutory and voluntary bodies, businesses and schools in my constituency. The response was four to one in favour of the proposed change. However, the majority in favour was less clear--at two to one--among head teachers, who had some very serious reservations about child safety.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider an amendment in Committee which would introduce the measures in his Bill for a trial period of about a year, with the provision to extend through statutory instrument if that was the consensus?

---