Clause 3 (Interpretation, short title and duration) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Part of Orders of the Day — SUMMER TIME BILL [Lords]. – in the House of Commons on 7th July 1922.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Edward Shortt Mr Edward Shortt , Newcastle upon Tyne West

The words that have been left out on Re-committal represent a matter of sentiment. These words are usually put in, to ensure that the people of the Channel Islands are informed of any change in the law. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Sir B. Falle) has great interest in the Channel Islands, I was glad to meet him in the matter. With regard to the shortening of Summer Time, it is very slight, if you take as the standard the recommendation of the Departmental Committee in 1917, but not if you take as the standard the Summer Time adopted this year, which is abnormally long. The Summer Time this year was fixed by agreement with France. France went in for a very long period of Summer Time, so long, indeed, that there has been an almost complete revulsion of feeling in France in regard to Summer Time at all. Who had a great number of negotiations with France in order to try to synchronise the Summer Time of France and this country, for the purpose of cross-channel traffic and so on, and we agreed this year to a much longer period of Summer Time than was recommended by the Departmental Committee.

From the period of Summer Time adopted this year we have taken off about six weeks, but, compared with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, we have only given the agricultural interest an additional seven days. The Committee in 1917 recommended that the period of Summer Time should be from the second Sunday in April to the third Sunday in September. The Bill fixes the period as from the third Sunday in April, the day after the third Saturday, to the third Sunday in September, the day after the third Saturday. Therefore the shortening of the period so far as the recommendations of the Departmental Committee are concerned is very slight. However, it helps the farmer, and it was agreed to on both sides in Committee upstairs, by those representing the urban districts and those representing the agricultural districts, as a fair compromise. It did not please either party, and therefore it was probably just. At any rate, they agreed to accept it and to allow the Bill to go through in the form in which it now stands.