Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from David Nuttall (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Friday, 20 January 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Daylight Saving Bill.


Daylight Saving Bill

That would, indeed, have been one way of dealing with this matter. Although I support amendment 30, I strongly oppose amendments 35 and 85. I am often in favour of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and, indeed, those of my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope), for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who tabled amendment 85. On this occasion, however, I am not in favour of their amendment, because I think we need a trial period of three years. If the trial is successful and the change proves to be of benefit and to achieve all that the Bill's proponents say it will achieve, that will lead to a permanent change in our time system that will affect every person in the country. Given those circumstances, it is only fair and reasonable that the trial should be for a minimum of three years. So I would oppose amendments 35 and 85 and stick to the wording of clause 5(1), which provides that the trial period be three years. Amendments 16 and 17 highlight the fact that even our time is a matter that the European Union has felt it necessary to interfere with, and it has done so by means of European directive 200/84/EC.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
538 c1026 
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