| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth and Kinross): Does the hon. Gentleman, with whom I agree, agree that trade between this country and Spain and Italy is far more disrupted by the three and four-hour lunch breaks in those countries than by the small matter of a one hour time difference?
Mr. Hain: The hon. Lady makes a valid point: the siesta factor is greater than the one-hour factor.
We are invited to believe that leisure will become easier because of the time change, but that argument is advanced against a background of British workers working longer than anyone else in Europe. Their hours have increased substantially over the past decade. There is not time for the average British worker to enjoy the extra hour that he or she would allegedly have in the evening. The argument is nonsense.
We are invited to believe that crime would be reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) made the point tellingly: the idea that the average criminal will alter his or her behaviour in response to a time change is fantasy. Such people are reasonably bright: if they are able to rob, mug and commit other crimes, they will do so regardless of whether the time changes by one hour. I shall rely on what the Home Office told the UCW journal a little over a year ago in 1994, when it said that, on the matter of crime,
Mr. John Marshall:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when the previous experiment took place, there was no evidence that the level of crime changed as a result? It is fatuous to suggest that one thing or the other would help; people should look at what happened during the experiment, when no reduction in crime could be related to the change.
Mr. Hain:
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, who has made his point effectively.
On the subject of accidents, may I say--particularly in response to the rather highly charged speech of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)--that I have two boys. They are now hairy teenagers, but a few years ago they were tiny children. If I thought that it could be shown definitively, to my satisfaction, that, as a result of the change, accidents involving children and children's deaths would be reduced, that would weigh heavily on my mind. I have not been convinced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) so ably
demonstrated in a devastating indictment of the sort of analysis of accidents that is put forward by the Bill's supporters, they have not proved their case.
Many wild claims about accidents have been made on behalf of the Bill's supporters. I am not saying that they are cooking the figures, but they are being highly creative. I shall rely on the words of a Home Secretary, Reginald Maudling, who commented on the then Road Research Laboratory analysis of the same figures, which are now given in a different fashion in this debate. He said:
That was his conclusion at the end of a two-year live experiment. He also drew attention to a
The Pedestrian Association on Road Safety reported a net increase of 44 fatal child casualties in the first two years of the experiment. Parents with children were also up in arms about that experiment. We have already heard that, according to a national opinion poll conducted in February 1970, 79 per cent. of parents wanted a return to the old system. Parents were also concerned about the safety of paperboys and girls in the early morning dark hours. That factor has not been mentioned up to now.
An independent report entitled "The case against a move to Central European Time" has been produced, not by some partisan trade union outfit, but by the centre for occupational and environmental health policy research at De Montfort University, Leicester. It points out how complicated it is to make easy judgment on the accident figures. The report states:
It details a number of arguments why the accident figures relied on by supporters of the Bill do not stand up. It also draws attention to a House of Commons Library research paper, published in 1993, which concluded:
Mr. Peter Bottomley:
To add to the figures the hon. Gentleman has given, has he noticed those in the House of Commons Library brief, at the end of appendix 1? The figures for children between the ages of five and 15-- which includes those of school age--killed or seriously injured during the experiment showed that, instead of the expected increase in accidents in the morning, there was a reduction of 14, and a reduction of 319 in the evening. Both figures are statistically significant.
Mr. Hain:
I do not dispute what was reported in the House of Commons research paper, but the conclusion is slightly different from that reached in an earlier one. I could quote all the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles mentioned and the others that I have noted, but their significance is finely judged.
It is important to consider the number of workers who would be affected. In Britain, 1.6 million people are early morning workers. During the previous experiment, it was noted that, in the fourth quarter of 1967, compared with the fourth quarter of 1968, the number of building workers who died increased from 35 to 44, and accidents were up by 265.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the De Montfort report was prepared by
Mr. Hain:
My hon. Friend may have a valid point-- I pay tribute to his sincerity--in comparing the validity of the TRL report with the university report, but those reports must be weighed in the balance, and I do not think that we can dismiss the De Montfort report lightly.
During the previous experiment, the fatality rate per 1,000 construction operatives went from 13.5 in 1967 to 18.9 in 1969. That was the only occasion when the otherwise steady improvement in safety conditions on building sites was reversed.
According to the National Federation of Building Trades Employees, the experiment between 1968 and 1971 cost the building industry an extra £30 million. I asked the Library to update that figure to its current value, and it appears that the cost to the building industry would be £245 million. The business case advanced by supporters of the Bill must be weighed against that cost.
Government figures show that, during the experiment in 1968 to 1971, the number of accidents suffered by Post Office workers between the hours of 7 am and 9 am more than doubled from 1,104 to 2,287. Those were official Government figures.
The Post Office conducted a survey during November to February when the changes occurred--during the early morning darkness period. It found that the accidents to postmen while on delivery or outside work increased from 1,262 before the experiment started to 2,242 in the second year of the experiment--a massive increase. The Post Office also noted that there was a general increase in the time taken to complete first deliveries and that an increased number of lamp batteries and torches had to be used.
There are 90,000 Royal Mail delivery staff, of whom 10,000 are women, which was not the case during the experiment, as there has been a massive increase in the number of postwomen during the past 20 years. They must usually leave the sorting office by 6.45 am and they are out in the streets delivering between 7 am and 9.50 am in London and between 7 am and 9.30 am elsewhere. If the change were made, throughout most of the country in midwinter, postmen and women would make the entire first delivery in darkness. That is dangerous, not only because of weather conditions, but because of the risk of muggings. Postmen and women refuse to deliver in some no-go areas because of crime and attacks on them.
Mr. Flynn:
So that we may assess the importance of those accidents, will my hon. Friend tell us how many of those additional accidents were fatal, how many caused serious injury and how many were trivial?
Mr. Hain:
They were mostly serious injuries. I can go into detail if my hon. Friend wants me to, but I discussed that matter to some extent earlier.
What are the opinions of postmen and women throughout Britain? In England, Postman Pat is cross, in Wales, Postman Dai is angry and in Scotland, Postman Jock is livid about the prospect of the change.
Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan):
I am probably one of the very few hon. Members who have climbed a telegraph pole. Before I came to this place, 23 years ago, I was a Post Office telephone engineer, which is why I am very interested in what my hon. Friend has to say about our postal colleagues. I hope that he will remember that British Telecom engineers are required to climb telegraph poles in the dark, which is a hazardous business. I am therefore fully with him in opposing the Bill.
"there has not been one piece of definitive evidence in support of a shift either way."
"The figures are not clear enough to base a decision upon."
"sad increase in child casualties between 6 pm and 7 pm"--[Official Report, 2 December 1970; Vol.807, c.1335.]
"Claims that a move . . . would deliver a reduction in road traffic casualties are not proved. There is some evidence that road traffic accidents would in fact increase."
"the possibility of a small net increase in child and road casualties . . . cannot be ruled out."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |