Debates between Tobias Ellwood and Gordon Banks during the 2010-2015 Parliament

Daylight Saving Bill

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Gordon Banks
Friday 3rd December 2010

(13 years, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tobias Ellwood Portrait Mr Ellwood
- Hansard - -

We went to some lengths to ensure that the Bill benefits not constituencies but the whole of the UK, and paid attention to Scotland specifically. Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to the debate that Scottish Members had last week. I think it was the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) who commented that the previous Prime Minister, who is from Scotland, had said that this would be good for Britain and for Scotland.

Gordon Banks Portrait Gordon Banks
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I do not want to argue or disagree with the hon. Gentleman. If he bears with me, my position will become a little clearer.

Tobias Ellwood Portrait Mr Ellwood
- Hansard - -

It is fuzzy at the moment.

Gordon Banks Portrait Gordon Banks
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I think it is important for the Opposition to identify some of the problems that a number of people outside the House, as well as a number of Members, have with the Bill. However, I believe that there is a solution to those problems, and I believe that that solution is in the Bill.

Let me now make our position a little less fuzzy, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East. Although we have some unanswered questions, it is fair to say that there is a strong argument in favour of analysis and more detailed scrutiny. I shall say more shortly about the problems that are envisaged. However, as we believe that scrutiny of the Bill and its objectives would be carried out most effectively in Committee, we will not oppose its Second Reading today.

The Bill’s approach broadly mirrors that of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and Visit Scotland. They, like us, welcome the debate on the issues, but have yet to develop a firm viewpoint on the potential viability of the changes. We reserve our judgment on the Bill until there has been a thorough and detailed assessment of its effects. Indeed, I believe that that is the Bill’s objective.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), who said in the recent Adjournment debate that the benefits to Scotland were “unquantifiable in advance.” Let me take that a step further, and say that at this stage the risks may also be unquantifiable. That is why we will not oppose the Bill’s progress to Committee, where those risks and benefits can be explored more fully.