| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.51 pm
Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock and Burntwood): I had a vision of the Prime Minister making his new year resolutions. I could just see him saying, "Send me a measure that would save lives, cut crime, conserve energy, boost business and promote health. As a bonus, could it be one that enables me to watch cricket later into the evening and, if possible, could it be cost-free?" Then, as if by magic, number one in the ballot for private Members' Bills went to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who delivers such a measure.
I am afraid that the Government are in such a mood, and have been for some time, that, when they see an unpopular measure they grasp it like a drunk reaching out for his first drink of the day. When they see a potentially
popular measure, however, they step around it as though they have seen something unpleasant in the park. It is not my job to help them, but it is rather extraordinary to observe what is going on.
For example, the Secretary of State for Scotland has been given some kind of freelance licence to subvert the Bill, whose passage would be greeted with approbation by almost every organisation representing all the interests that we have discussed today. Its rejection will be greeted with incomprehension by those very organisations.
Mr. Gallie:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Wright:
I cannot give way, because other hon. Members want to speak.
We have a range of annual rituals, including losing test matches, sacking football managers, watching royal marriages break up and seeing Prime Ministers being relaunched. One of the worst is the annual, masochistic ritual in October, when, as the days close in and people start feeling it is the end of the world and take themselves to their doctors in vast numbers, we respond by changing the clocks so that the days get even darker.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce:
So would the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Wright:
We set off a syndrome called seasonal affective disorder by way of unhelpful response.
I do not speak for the north; I do not speak for the south. This should not be that type of debate. I speak for the middle. [Laughter] I speak for middle England. I speak for Staffordshire.
Three years ago, Staffordshire county council road safety and accident investigation units conducted an exhaustive analysis of road accident figures around the clock at 32 sites in the county. It found that the danger time was between 4 pm and 7 pm and said emphatically, on the basis of that research, that the end of British summer time posed a special problem and that a measure such as we are debating was sensible.
If there is informed opinion in support of change, why do we not move? Not--as some hon. Members suggested earlier--because there are physical laws that prevent our doing so. I believe that it was my good friend the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) who, conjuring up dark fears, said that the change was profoundly unnatural.
Those are absurd arguments. It is like saying that, because it must rain, we shall not invent umbrellas or occasionally use them. We take measures that make life more tolerable in relation to the elements that confront us. We can do something to ensure that the precious few hours of daylight, especially in winter, are used to our maximum advantage, not our maximum disadvantage.
The Bill does not, for me at least, concern Europe. I know that some hon. Members believe that it does, which is why they turn out on these occasions, frothing at the mouth, hearing the mention of Europe. I always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), appearing in fluorescent mode. I especially enjoyed her rallying call to all loyal Conservatives, which I thought was a nice intervention.
The Bill is not about the interests of business. If the convenience of business were the sole consideration, I would not be attached to the issue. I am here because I
have lived through the present arrangements, witnessed what happens and considered the evidence. The evidence says that the Bill would prevent death and injury on the roads, that it would help to reclaim the streets, especially for the elderly and for women, and that it would prevent a night-time curfew for those groups of people. It would give more play, more sport, more recreation and more health. It would, incidentally, help business, boost tourism and save energy.
Mr. Butterfill:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Wright:
I would rather not.
If we are confronted with such an issue, the question must be, "What, on balance, would do more to promote the quality of life of the majority of people--moving in that direction or not moving in that direction?" The evidence is overwhelming, and the House has a responsibility to consider, and respond to, it.
I have discovered during the debate that this is not the place or the moment to search for statistical illumination. We shall not make progress on that front. We nevertheless have a duty to consider the available evidence, ransack our experience, reflect the opinions and judgments of people outside the House and reach a balanced view. Knowing all that, we must concern ourselves with why such a measure has never been implemented before.
Mr. Home Robertson:
It has been--20 years ago.
Dr. Wright:
I am speaking about the past 20 years. The measure has always been thwarted--it has become obvious today that this is the reason--because it is always possible to assemble a collection of vested interests and special pleaders who, together, will triumph over the public interest. I take the rather old-fashioned view that it is the duty of the House to make a judgment about the public interest. I particularly want to hear what Scotland has to say. I recently had the temerity to say on television that, when the Scottish Parliament is established--I am committed to that objective--we might have to revisit the issue of Scottish representation in this place.
The following night, I happened to share a taxi with two Scottish colleagues, both of whom were generously proportioned and mildly lubricated. They asked whether I wanted to reduce the number of Scottish seats in the House and I replied, "Only in a general way." They then asked, "Who in particular do you have in mind?", and I said, "I have to get out at the next stop."
I believe that Scotland matters. Before I leave Scotland--I shall leave it all in a moment--I refer hon. Members to the best article that I have read on the subject. Writing in Scotland on Sunday in December, Joyce McMillan said:
Parliament has a duty to examine, assess and make a judgment about the matter. I do not think that the Bill is bad news for Scots in general, but the House must make
the final decision in that regard. Some groups of workers will be inconvenienced and adjustments will have to be made. It will be appalling news for masochists and muggers, firework freaks and couch potatoes, but it will be good news for the vast majority of people.
I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) who said that the proponents of the Bill were making "extraordinarily extravagant claims". I do not make "extraordinarily extravagant claims" in support of the Bill. I simply reiterate the argument put by George Bernard Shaw, who said that progress does not occur through great leaps forward; it occurs through what he called "paltry instalments of betterment".
Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside):
I have listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright). He said that he wanted to listen to Scottish voices, so I trust that he will listen to what I have to say. Although I am older than he is, like him, I have old-fashioned values--and I have probably held them for a lot longer.
Mr. Duncan Smith:
That is because my hon. Friend is older.
Mr. Walker:
Yes, that must be why.
The Bill is misnamed: it is called the British Time (Extra Daylight) Bill, but I would prefer it to be called the British Time (Extra Daylight, Bournemouth) Bill.
We have listened to a wide-ranging debate--I shall touch on each of the points in turn--about issues including children, road and pavement safety, road casualties, farming, forestry, the banking and financial sector, industry, tourism, aviation, landing slots, religious community problems, crime, and the postal, construction and utility workers. Something good has come from the debate--we probably all agree that the date at which we change the clocks should be harmonised throughout Europe. No one would argue about the benefits to be derived from changing the clocks on the same day.
Certain factors have not been properly understood by those who feel that, because we are a minority, the Scottish dimension should not be taken into account fully, properly and adequately. There is no doubt whatever that there are logical and sensible reasons for having time zones that are based on geographic location, latitude and longitude. The further north and west one is, the greater is the impact of the proposition in the Bill.
Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) nor anyone else has addressed another critical factor--altitude. No one has mentioned the relevance of height above sea level, yet it is probably the most critical factor in temperature change. My hon. Friend said that the United Kingdom benefited from the Gulf stream. It is no secret that I have spent most of my life involved in aviation matters. My right hon. Friend
the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) understands my point because, in our younger days, we experienced the problem of carburettor icing.
It is not always remembered and understood that height produces temperature loss. Not only does Scotland have the problem of being further north and further west, but many of the communities that would be most adversely affected by the changes proposed in the Bill are high above sea level.
The impact of the Gulf stream was mentioned. Because the Gulf stream comes down the west coast of Scotland and because the Atlantic brings in much moist, warm air, Scotland has relatively high humidity. That cannot be changed, whatever we do with the clocks. It will continue to affect us every day.
"the idea that Scots gain some special advantage from GMT is preposterous; no power on earth can increase the measly amount of daylight in northern Scotland in midwinter, or save its children from making dark journeys to and from school.
But for reasons of pride, ignorance and stiff-necked daftness, we allow our public representatives, whenever this subject comes up, to prate about the 'Scottish objection' to CET in terms which strongly suggest that for special reasons--no doubt to do with the unsatisfactory terms of the Union--Scotland is the only place on earth where an hour of light can be lost in the morning without being gained in the afternoon".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |