Proceeding contribution from Christopher Chope (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Friday, 20 January 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Daylight Saving Bill.
Daylight Saving Bill
My hon. Friend is right, as that was what was said in Committee. If one closely reads the Bill, however, one sees that it does not say that at all. It gives the impression that the oversight group might be able to give some advice on policy rather than just being a group of technocrats, but that is not what the Minister said in Committee. My hon. Friend is right to recall that in Committee we were told that this would be a technical group, but that is not what is on the face of the Bill. As a very experienced legislator, he knows that we must judge things on the basis of what is in the Bill rather than on what the Government say they intend. That is the background. Amendment 65, which was again tabled by me and my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough and for Gainsborough would leave out clause 2(5). The subsection is a major constraint on the independence of the group. It appears from what the Minister said in Committee that the Government want the group to establish facts but not to give too much, if any, advice to the Government. If the Government are choosing and controlling the membership of the group, however, why are they not willing to trust its members to behave responsibly and bring forward a comprehensive report of their own choosing? It is very difficult to find the best people to serve on independent groups, but it will be much more difficult to get the best people on to this group if they know that they are joining a group that will not be independent and that they will not be able to use their judgment because they are always beholden to the Government, who will be looking over their shoulder. Leaving out that subsection would enhance the independence of the group. Amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), would require the terms of reference to include an investigation into the impact on energy consumption of advancing time by one hour. One might assume that such an investigation would be essential if the group were to produce a definitive report on the potential costs and benefits. The amendment, however, exposes the fact that the Secretary of State could specifically prevent the group from looking into such a matter. Some might say that I am being unduly suspicious of the Government and might ask what possible motive there could be for their doing that, but we know from the experience in Indiana that, with darker mornings, more energy was consumed than was offset by the reduction in energy use in the lighter evenings. I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding in agreement.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 538 c984
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Devolution Northern Ireland Pupils Scotland Safety Wales Roads Sports Research Tourism Summertime
- Legislation
- Daylight Saving Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 14:44:51 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_802151
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_802151
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_802151