| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with the work of Strathclyde region, which was not produced at the last minute but was carried out over a number of years, examining figures from the 1990s? Its conclusions were directly contrary to those of the Transport Research Laboratory. Will the hon. Gentleman concede that research finds on both sides, not one side, of the argument, and that the report produced by Strathclyde region represents a powerful argument for Scottish Members?
Sir Peter Lloyd: I am happy to concede that the statistics are complicated, and that there are differences of
opinion. The fact that we have only just received the research by Scottish Office--not all the figures are available--is a good reason for considering the Bill in Committee, where hon. Members can examine the figures. I support the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) in his request that the Bill should be committed to a Special Standing Committee. It would be valuable and right to consider all the arguments.
If the findings of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are correct, that proves only that the Bill would make no difference to accidents. We would still have to consider all the other arguments, which are considerable. However, my right hon. Friend has helped to shoot down one of the main arguments of those who oppose the Bill--that it would lead to more accidents involving children travelling to school in the morning.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) will have the opportunity to make a speech enlarging on that point. He believes that it will make no difference.
Sir Peter Lloyd:
If the argument is between those that say that it will not have much effect on accident figures and those who say--with very good evidence--that it will make a great deal of difference, we should not just give the Bill a Second Reading, but ensure that it reaches the Statute Book, so that we can test it out.
We should not bandy across the Chamber light-hearted aspersions on research with which we may or may not not agree. If the Transport Research Laboratory research is right, we could be saving lives. It is much more serious than looking at all the research and taking our pick of that which coincides with our prejudice.
I would be happy to support an amendment in Committee to adopt the change for two years. There should then be a review and a new vote as to whether it should continue. It is difficult for those who argue that it will not make much different to cast aside the opportunity to test the opinion--which many believe to be well-founded--that it would save lives and prevent injuries.
Mr. Salmond:
The result of the trial run between 1960 and 1971 was a huge vote in the House to discontinue the experiment. I did not cite the Scottish Office report, but that of Strathclyde region, which is devastating in its indictment of the Department of Transport figures, and reaches exactly the opposite conclusion from studying actual road conditions in Scotland. Scottish Members of Parliament are much influenced by that report.
Sir Peter Lloyd:
If the hon. Gentleman is serious about serious research, he must agree to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that it can be fully discussed in Committee. Important matters should not be dismissed and thrown aside with comments across the Chamber that cannot be based on analysing research that does not support the views that some hon. Members hold.
Mrs. Helen Liddell (Monklands, East):
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that pilot studies undertaken by Strathclyde region in 1986 and 1993 specifically examined the effect of change across the region?
Sir Peter Lloyd:
The Transport Research Laboratory tried to take into account all the changes since the original trial. The results of the trial period were not available to the House when it decided to end it. We should seriously study all research by competent people, and it is doubly incumbent on us to do so when research reaches different conclusions.
We are talking about people's lives and serious injuries. It behoves us to reach a proper decision, and we cannot do that unless the Bill goes into Committee. At this point, I am convinced by the Transport Research Laboratory's findings, which seem much more thorough--but, unlike some right hon. and hon. Members, I am more open-minded, and would like to examine all the research further.
The least important benefit is that to UK industry, including in Scotland, of using the same time zone as the rest of western Europe. As a long-standing Eurosceptic, I do not want to follow Europe for the sake of harmonisation, but believe that being on the same clock will help this country more than our competitors. As the UK is one hour behind the rest of Europe and it is one hour ahead, it is more difficult for UK business people to attend a day's meeting on the continent than for Europeans to come here. The lack of congruence of office hours hurts us more than them. That is not a decisive point, but it is part of the argument.
Small businesses are certainly in favour of change. My hon. Friend the Minister might find interesting a letter that I received from the Federation of Small Businesses, which ends:
Perhaps the Government should withdraw the Finance Bill, and give the time over to my hon. Friend's measure.
The European Commission has never sought to impose CET on this country, but it is determined to synchronise the end as well as the start of summer time across the European Union.
The Commission is doing so by bringing the rest of Europe into line with us and adopting our change date at the end of October. The way is now clear for us to do ourselves a favour by simply not putting the clocks back in October 1997. We will not get an extra hour in bed on that occasion, but we will almost painlessly acquire the advantages of lighter winter afternoons. The decision should be taken in the light of our needs and interests, not those of Europe. On this matter, the Commission has not been pressing us to come into line with the rest of Europe--for once.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West on promoting this Bill, and I am sure that he will understand if I say that I am sorry he had to do so. I hope the Bill gets on to the statute book, but the odds are always against a private Member's Bill such as this.
I believe that the issue should have been brought to the House by a Government Bill on a free vote, although I understand why the Government have not yet done that. I am sure that they feared that the measure would get embroiled in the arguments over Europe, but I believe that the decision of the EU to follow us on the end date has removed that worry. The total lack of pressure to change our clocks to CET underlines that view.
More important, the Government were reluctant to ride roughshod over what appears to be Scottish opinion, and I do not want to do that either. The Government are right to heed Scottish feelings, but public opinion polls and plenty of Scottish organisations have shown that the Government have probably overestimated the hostility of Scots towards putting the clocks forward. I know that a number of Scottish Members of Parliament feel exactly that, and the Government may have heavily underestimated the support in Scotland for the measure.
Support for the measure in Scotland will grow as the benefits and disbenefits of the change are thoroughly discussed, for all the benefits that apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland will apply also to Scotland-- particularly, according to the Transport Research Laboratory, those related to road accidents.
Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles):
My immediate predecessor as the hon. Member for the Western Isles spoke at length the last time that the House debated this topic in 1970, and I am grateful to have been called to speak today. It is instructive to look at that debate in 1970, because a number of supporters of the change today have made the point that individuals, groups and some hon. Members in Scotland are in favour of the change, and that was exactly the case then as well.
Among those speaking in favour of the change in 1970 were the hon Members for Dundee, West, for Glasgow, Provan and for Motherwell. Indeed, the then hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland voted to continue the experiment in 1970. There always will be a small number of people within Scotland who are in favour of such an experiment, but the fact is--as that debate showed--that they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by those who are bitterly opposed to it.
Among those speaking violently against the 1970 experiment were many hon. Members from south of the border. Hon Members from Buckinghamshire, Newcastle, Liverpool, Westmorland, Preston, Sunderland, Ipswich, Manchester, Dorset, Wiltshire and Chippenham all spoke strongly on the basis of real experience--not on the basis of a hypothetical projection--against the experiment, and that is why it was cast out by 366 votes to 81.
"If there was a choice between the 1996 Finance Bill and Mr. Butterfill's Private Member's Bill (which would advance by one hour, the time for general purposes throughout the year and lead to the above advantages), then I think I know which one the business community would like to see on the Statute Book."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |