Ed Davey
Main Page: Ed Davey (Liberal Democrat - Kingston and Surbiton)(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Chope
If that is so, and I am sure it is, we are in danger of embarking on a course that will waste an enormous amount of public money and Government time. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), said in Committee that a trial involving advancing all the clocks in the UK by one hour would not proceed
“if there was clear opposition from any part of the country.”––[Official Report, Daylight Saving Public Bill Committee, 7 December 2011; c. 4.]
Ian Murray
I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak.
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing the Bill to this stage in the House and I hope that we can at least conclude its Third Reading this morning.
Mr Davey
I concur with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) in his praise for my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). May I, laser beam-like and briefly, focus on the amendments?
Amendment 3 talks about the independent oversight group. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) seemed to misunderstand what the group is about. It is about providing the appropriate challenge to the evidence and methodologies to ensure that they are robust. Amendment 3, which would dispense with the independent oversight group entirely, would be a retrograde step. The Committee welcomed the way in which we had approached the issue of the oversight group.
The amendments that seek to change the membership of the group misunderstand the role of the group. They seek to suggest that it is about representation, when it is not. Trying to confine it to academics only would be a mistake. There might be an appropriate expert who might not be described as an academic. I hope the House will understand that the oversight group is formed in the right way with the right terms of reference. I am surprised that Members want to amend the terms of reference to make them more prescriptive, because that could narrow them down.
Members have talked about the faith impact. Amendment 95 is not needed, because it is clear that this is one of the qualitative potential effects that the report would look at. To reassure hon. Members further, I can say that specific legal provision requiring that the impact on faith communities be considered is unnecessary because the Secretary of Sate is subject to the public sector equality duty in the Equality Act 2010. So, in preparing the report and taking a view on whether to exercise the powers for a trial, the Secretary of Sate would be required under that duty to take into account the impact that a change might have on people of a particular faith and, indeed, on other people with protected characteristics.
Mr MacNeil
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to speak so quickly that it is hard for him to be understood?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
That is not a point of order. It is up to the Minister how quickly he speaks. We do not place a limit on how fast or how slowly Ministers speak, and thank goodness for that.
Mr Davey
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I should like to speak to the lead amendment in this group, amendment 59, which seeks to turn the Bill into a summer time extension Bill by changing the dates on which summer time ends. I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch realises that that would not be compatible with the EU directive on summer time arrangements, which has been in force for many years. The House might wish to reflect—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Mr Chope, as a long-serving Member of the House, you know, as I do, that it is up to the Minister whether he gives way or not.
Mr Davey
I am showing the hon. Gentleman the courtesy that he showed to the other Members of the House who wished to speak on this matter.
The House might wish to reflect on the fact that, when the directive was passed, other member states changed their dates to coincide with those of the United Kingdom. I therefore do not think that we should change the nature of the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and amended in Committee. We should now proceed to debate the next group of amendments.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I had intended, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), to speak in the debate this morning in support of the Bill, and to draw the House’s attention to the South Yorkshire Safer Roads Partnership and to the impact that the Bill would have on reducing road accidents. I will not now do so, in the interest of saving time, but I would like to make the point that I have been lobbied on this issue by a wide variety of constituents. Unusually, I hope that they are not watching the debate today, because if they are, they will be appalled by the attempts of a tiny minority of Members to frustrate the overwhelming will of the House and of the country to support the Bill.
Mr Reid
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the referendum proposed by the SNP in Scotland were to succeed, Scotland would have no say about the time in England. If the clock was moved forward by an hour in England, the situation to which I referred earlier would arise and the Scottish Government and Parliament would be presented with a fait accompli.
Mr Reid
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He shows once again the complete inconsistency of the Scottish Government. One minute, they ask for one thing and, if it is granted, they start huffing and puffing and complaining that the Government here are being anti-Scottish. In fact, the Government here have given the Scottish Government exactly what they asked for.
Mr MacNeil
I admire the hon. and gallant Gentleman’s headlong enthusiasm, but we must reflect before plunging ourselves into 15 months of misery. It can be seriously argued that the change in the late ’60s and early ’70s cost lives, because the rate of road accident deaths did not go down as quickly during that period as it did in subsequent years. If I have to repeat myself again and again before that is understood, I will do so. If we disregard such a serious fact and run to a trial, surely we are putting people in danger.
Mr MacNeil
Many people would welcome the study for a number of reasons, and that organisation would welcome it because it would enable it to get the data. I am just saying that it looks as if the period for getting the data would itself be dangerous.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There is a danger that we will be distracted from the more important road safety issues if we imagine that the extra hour is a panacea. The measures that he mentions are probably far more important than the light at a particular hour, which is distracting far too many people when there are safety measures that need to be used.
I am struck by the fact that road deaths fell by 300 between the winter of 2009 and the winter of 2010-11. Had the moves in the previous Parliament to have lighter evenings during the winter succeeded, a causal link would have been drawn between the lighter evenings and the drop in deaths. As we now know, that reduction in deaths happened anyway, with darker evenings. It is dangerous to make assumptions and links between lighter evenings and deaths on the roads, particularly as the rate of deaths decreased immediately after the study of the late 1960s and the ’70s. Perhaps that study delayed the rate of the decrease.
I move back to energy. The data used to support the changes seem to have a serious flaw. The campaign’s main source of data is 24 studies on the effect of lighter evenings. Of those 24, only six were empirical studies and the rest were simulations. The paper examining them found that 15 studies concluded that there were energy savings. Of those 15, approximately two were empirical studies and 10 were simulations. The odd thing about the simulations is that they showed savings of 0.2% and 2%, and another study showed a saving of 0%. Surely a 0% saving could also be called a 0% loss. The information that we have from Indiana, Portugal and elsewhere shows that energy would be lost, not saved, if the change was made, and there would not be safety gains.
As for tourism, my amendment suggesting that the studies be carried out in November would ensure that it could not benefit from another month of “lighter later”. That would be a perfect compromise for many of us who need to find consensus, extend an olive branch and find middle ground. I fear that an all-or-nothing campaign would yield exactly nothing.
Mr Davey
These amendments address the role of the devolved Administrations, and I therefore think it would assist the debate if I explained how the Bill’s provisions would affect the devolution settlements.
The subject of time zones is devolved in respect of Northern Ireland but reserved in respect of Scotland and Wales. However, as I have said before, the Government believe that the issue requires UK-wide consensus. The Government will consult the Welsh and Scottish Governments fully on any proposed trial or any proposal to make a trial permanent. The Government would not expect to proceed with a trial if, following those consultations, there was clear opposition from any part of the country.
While we are on the subject of devolution I will say that I believe there may have been some confusion in Committee about the position regarding legislative consent motions of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Such a motion is required in respect of this Bill, not in respect of a daylight saving order. The motion is required before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage. We approached the Northern Ireland Administration about taking the matter forward, and the Government’s continued support for the Bill depends upon the legislative consent motion being passed in due course. That will have no effect on the Bill’s provision requiring the agreement of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland, which reflects the point that time is devolved in respect of Northern Ireland.
As I said, the position of the Bill reflects the devolution settlement. Consultation with the devolved Executives is common, and it is appropriate in this instance. It would allow for discussion to take place on the issues involved and on any concerns. Moreover, the devolved Governments are accountable to their legislatures.
Mr MacNeil
The Minister and I discussed this matter back and forward at some length in Committee. Given the measures that he is outlining, would it be possible for the Government here in Westminster to override the wishes of the Scottish Government?
Mr Davey
We have made it clear that that is not our intention, and that we will listen to all parts of the United Kingdom. We would not expect to proceed if there were clear opposition from other parts of the UK. The devolved Governments may wish to put the matter before their Parliament or Assembly, but that would be a matter for them. For that reason, we think that amendment 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), is inappropriate. We consider it a matter for the devolved Administrations.
On amendments 16 and 17, my hon. Friend talked about changing the dates of summer time, but I have dealt with those issues in previous debates.
Philip Davies
The Ministers says that he is determined that this will not go ahead without the agreement of people in Scotland and Wales, as well as Northern Ireland, so why will he not accept that being made clear in the Bill? If that is his intention, he has nothing to lose from making it clear in the Bill. He might be prepared to seek their agreement, but he might move onwards and upwards in the future, leaving someone else in his position, so we need a safeguard to ensure that his successors will adopt the same procedure.
Mr Davey
No.
The Bill also provides for the devolved Executives to be consulted about any proposals to increase the trial period, and their views will be fully taken into account. The power to lengthen the trial will be available from the date of the report, and if the report indicated that a longer trial was necessary, that power could be exercised to lengthen the trial before the devolved Executives gave their view on whether to have a trial. That means that they would know then about the trial’s expected length, so the amendment that suggests otherwise misses the point.
Asking for reports from the First Ministers, as proposed in amendment 38, is neither necessary nor appropriate. The Secretary of State will monitor the effects of the order for the whole country, and is the person best placed to do so, but the First Ministers would, of course, be welcome to submit anything that they might wish for the Secretary of State to consider. It would not be appropriate for the House, through this Bill, to require any report from the First Ministers or to impose any costs on them. After all, they are devolved Administrations.
Mr MacNeil
Would the devolved Administrations have full access to the data on which the report was based? Furthermore, we are getting Government policy from the Minister but I would be much more comfortable if it was written into the Bill.
Mr Davey
Of course, the devolved Administrations will have access to the report and the data on which it was based. That is how the Government have approached the whole issue. We have worked hard to get consensus at this stage, because we want consensus at all stages. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that assurance. I have checked the record of the Committee stage, and it appears that I made it clear on no fewer than 13 separate occasions that the Government would not expect to carry out a trial or make any change if there was clear opposition from any part of the country. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute and other right hon. and hon. Members. It is clear that we want consensus.
Dr Whiteford
I do not intend to take up too much of the House’s time today. I regret that it is so easy to use the procedures of the House to inhibit rather than enable constructive debate on an issue that is so serious, particularly for my constituents in the north of Scotland.
When we debated this matter before, I approached it with an open mind. I thought that after 40 years it was important to consider the evidence, the changes since the last review and possible ways of moving forward. I was keen to speak on this group of amendments, particularly amendments 16 and 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), because I am concerned that exaggerated claims have been made for the outcomes of the Bill. When I looked at the evidence, I found that it did not always stack up: it seemed simplistic; it drew conclusions that could not be attributed to the evidence presented; most of it was theoretical and there was little empirical data; and, above all, it took little account of other attendant factors that might prove critical in the overall picture.
Any policy changes need to be based on the reality of geography, the environment and our body clock, not to put too fine a point on it. The reality for people in the north and west of these islands is that in the heart of winter we have only seven hours of daylight a day at most. People already go to and from school and work in the dark. The question is not just how we use the limited amount of daylight available to us; perhaps more importantly, it is how we minimise the inconveniences of that limited amount of daylight, and of working and living in the dark.
For me, the critical issue and the reason why amendments 16 and 17 are so important is that the dark days coincide with the cold winter months. It is not just the darkness; the cold compounds the effects of the dark. In more northerly parts and on higher ground, temperatures are significantly lower. The coldest time of day is the hours just before dawn, which is exactly when more people will be moving around, going to school or work, if the changes are introduced.
In Aberdeenshire, gritters grit our roads for seven months of the year. They do not do it every day, but from October to April we must protect our commuters from frosty roads, which are undoubtedly dangerous. One thing that has come out of the debate on these amendments and others is that it is hard to attribute road safety to factors involving daylight or darkness. It is much easier to say that a whole lot of other factors have an effect: driver behaviour, road conditions and, above all, weather conditions. These can be treacherous not just for drivers but for pedestrians. One need only look at an accident and emergency department on a morning when pavements are icy to see people with broken wrists, arms and hips. The dangers are real, and they are exacerbated in the hours before daylight when the ice has not yet melted. That is key, and it is why people in my part of the world feel so strongly about the issue. They do not want to expose themselves to more of the same.
Some of the other myths that need to be discussed a bit more include the myth about tourism. The great luxury of being on holiday is that people can get up exactly when they like and do whatever they like. If they are on a holiday involving field sports, they might get up in the middle of the night anyway, to optimise their use of time. By the same token, if they want to lie in until 10 or 11 am, they can.
I welcome the Government’s approach in saying that they want consensus, but as other Members have said, unless there is something in legislation to pin the matter down, it is hard to have confidence in that kind of language. Both the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar—I do not know that I say that quite as well as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg)—seek those reassurances.
Mr Davey
Will the hon. Lady confirm that in the Bill we have done what the SNP asked us to do? What we said in Committee and in our press releases, and what I have reconfirmed today, goes further than the SNP asked us to, in order to ensure that we represented Scottish interests and got consensus.
Dr Whiteford
I absolutely recognise the progress that the Minister has made. It is good, but we need safeguards. I am not the only person who takes with a little pinch of salt some of Government Front Benchers’ assurances. We would like the issue pinned down in a way that will give us assurances and alleviate some of the concerns of people in Scotland, who face a disproportionate negative impact from any trial that goes ahead. I would like some sort of trial to gather empirical data, and I think that the proposals made are one way to do so without exposing people to unnecessary risk.