A Bill presented by Rebecca Harris MP to require the Secretary of State to conduct a cross-departmental analysis of the potential costs and benefits of advancing time by one hour for all, or part of, the year.
Rebecca Harris (Con, Castle Point) opened the second reading debate of the Daylight Saving Bill.
She said that the question of how we best use our daylight hours had been debated for well over 100 years, and that the fact that daylight saving had been championed by people all over the country and across the political spectrum suggested it was not a party political issue.
The Bill was supported by the Lighter Later coalition-whose members included Greenpeace and the British Beer and Pub Association, she said.
In addition over 9,000 letters of individual support had been written to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills she said.
Those most in favour included; children who like playing outside after school, elderly people who want to feel safer walking in the afternoon, local football teams who cannot afford to light their pitches, seasonal affective disorder sufferers who long for happier winters, and many doctors keen to reduce road traffic accidents and generally improve public health, she said.
She added that she had received an enormous number of representations from the tourism sector. Other sectors which she thought would benefit included the retail and leisure sectors, including sporting organisations, which meant that "its revenue potential is enormous".
Harris told MPs she had also heard the concerns of "amateur astronomers, saying that in the height of summer the measure could delay their ability to gaze at the stars for an extra hour, and the orthodox Jewish community that in the deep midwinter that there could be problems in getting to work on time after morning prayers".
She argued that those problems are not insurmountable.
She also rejected jibes about "Berlin time" and suggestions the move has been prompted by the EU.
"The issue is not about Berlin or getting rid of tradition; it is entirely about what is right for the residents of these islands and nothing else. It involves a simple question about how we should best use our daylight hours."
Albert Owen (Lab, Ynys Mon) backed the bill and said the benefits outweighed any problems that might occur.
"There would be less crime, fewer road accidents and fatalities, and increased recreational activities and tourism, which would provide a boost for all parts of the UK, particularly those north-western regions," he said.
Roger Gale (Con, North Thanet) called the bill a "sensible measure" and said Scotland should have its own timezone if it wanted.
"I am not speaking as a founder member of the Rebuild Hadrian's Wall Society, but it is incorrect to say that the concept of having one time zone south of the wall, or border, and another on the other side of it is unacceptable."
Angus MacNeil (SNP, Na h-Eileanan an Iar) said the bill will in reality move people into darkness, not daylight.
"The sleight of hand is that we are not moving the dawn about," he said.
"We are actually moving ourselves by changing the clocks.
"Clocks, which started by measuring time, end up governing lives, and we are moving ourselves into the night."
Bob Stewart (Con, Beckenham) said the "crucial thing is: will we save lives by changing the hours at which daylight starts and daylight ends?"
"We should check that and the only way we can do so is to give this a trial, 40 years on from the previous one," he told MPs.
"If we save one life by changing our clocks, it is worth it."
Tobias Ellwood (Con, Bournemouth East) said moving the clocks forward "would provide the entire country with about 200 hours of extra daylight in the evenings-after a normal working day for adults and after the end of school for children".
"That would change our lives."
Caroline Lucas (Green, Brighton Pavilion) said the bill would bring substanital reductions in carbon emissions and energy consumption.
"The urgency of the problems of climate change and fuel poverty means that the arguments for bringing the nation's clocks into closer alignment with the hours of daylight are stronger than ever," she said.
Angie Bray (Con, Ealing Central and Acton) also backed the bill.
"I remember when I was at St Andrews university it was light up until about 11 o'clock at night at certain times, and that seemed a little bit too long for me," she told the House.
"I am a British summer time girl and I am for sticking with it right through the year, but that is another argument that will be tested if we have scrutiny and a trial".
"That is the only way that we can move out of the revolving door of private members' bills".
"Let us have proper scrutiny, so that the matter can be decided once and for all for the benefit of our constituents and the country as a whole".
Claire Perry (Con, Devizes) backed a proposal from fellow Conservatives.
"I actually think that the measure should be called 'Churchill time,'" she said.
Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East) told MPs that there are some issues unique to Northern Ireland, such as "our land border with another region".
"Some people live on one side of the border, but go to school, church or community organisations on the other side".
"It is a very permeable border".
She added: "One member said that they found it incredibly irritating to have to change their clocks twice a year, and I think that some people in Northern Ireland might find it irritating to have to do it three or four times a day".
Business minister Ed Davey congratulated Bray and Ellwood, "who have rechristened the question one of 'Churchill time'".
"That is not only a positive reference to the last wartime coalition, but a reference to the great man's membership of both the Liberal and Conservative parties," he told the House.
Davey said the goverment's view was that it was unclear whether there would be a positive impact on crime rates, climate change and general public health.
The government saw many arguments in favour of the changes, he said, but told MPs his plan to publish a review of evidence is "a more appropriate way forward".
"We would all appreciate the chance to make the most of lighter evenings and welcome the benefits to energy saving and road safety that the change might bring, but unless and until we can extend the hours of daylight - I doubt that we could do that - lighter evenings means darker mornings," Davey said.
"A responsible government must take careful account of the disadvantages that that would bring to certain communities."
MPs voted 92 to 10 to send the bill on to the committee stage.
Progress
House of Commons
1st reading: 30 June 2010
2nd reading: 3 December 2010
Committee stage: Date to be announced
Article Comments
The current system, of maintaining two time systems only serves to
benefit clock manufactures and stone masons. The current system costs
individuals and businesses in the UK millions of pounds each year, with
having to purchase new clocks and equipment due to the increased wear
caused by the change, and the costs of having sun dials re-calibrated.
The current dual system is also shown to be directly responsible for
hundreds of deaths each year, especially around the time the clocks
change in the spring.
By fixing the time at GMT the government would be relaxing state
control over what time the working day starts and ends, and empowering
business and individuals to make their own choices.
Rather than the state deciding that schools should be open from 8-4,
would it not be better for the schools to decide on the best use of
resources. Giving a school the opportunity to only open during daylight
hours and to make up for any lost hours in the summer months when there is more daylight would encourage better uses of our natural resources.
Replacing the dual system with GMT would as well as providing local
benefits, would also encourage great trade between the UK and the rest
of the world. Thanks to the position of Greenwich as the Prime Meridian
most developed nations are used to working out their time zones as +or- GMT; sadly under the current system the UK is only able to benefit
from this for six months of the year.
Mark Beech
2nd Dec 2010 at 3:36 pm
How can anyone object to doing the proposed research on this important issue?
Energy and economic savings, as well as health considerations, need our full attention, and this is one way to see what can be done at very little further effort or expense.
My own view is very clear ( http://www.dreamingrealist.co.uk/category/bst-british-summer-time-and-daylight-saving-the-clocks-go-back-forward/ ),
but even if I thought differently I'd still welcome the research for the clarity it will bring.
Hilary Burrage
1st Dec 2010 at 6:32 pm
I would very much prefer to scrap BST altogether and follow GMT year round.
The solution to enjoying longer hours of daylight in the summer evenings is simple - get up earlier and go home earlier. Instead of introducing a bill to muck around with the time, the government could achieve this by requiring its staff and suppliers to start work at 8am rather than 9am. Since the government represents nearly half of the economy, this is likely to shift the critical mass of the population towards starting earlier. It would also retain the relationship between the clock time and the position of the sun in the sky.
Douglas Varney
1st Dec 2010 at 5:25 pm
Sorry Mr Byard, I remember the experiment of 1968 as well and it was awful.Portugal tried this experiment as well in the 90's and then abandoned it. Of suggesting we have a different time zone from the Scots, but the same time zone as Italy I can make no sense of at all.
t miller
20th Nov 2010 at 6:09 pm
I remember the first experinment of this in the 1970's.
It was great! We had to change back because of the the complaing Scots. Now that they have their own parliament, why should we, the english, consider their views?
Let's do it and if Scotland does not wish to do it, so be it.
D Byard
31st Oct 2010 at 5:45 pm
Why is the same old excuse about children going to school or coming home, the children in Norway and Demark go to school without any problems stop changing the clock there were no problems during the second world war, plus there were no street lights.
Michael Nash
31st Oct 2010 at 4:24 pm
This is the stupidest idea I've heard. Much is made of the safety of children by increasing daylight hours in the afternoon, yet no one ever considers these children will have to go to school in the dark in the morning instead if this bill becomes law. Most children are driven to and from school these days to anyway the whole child safety argument is moot and based on out dated data from the late 60's.
Much is made of enjoying the extra light, 'when most people are awake to enjoy it'. Well don't know about the MPs but most people I know have to wake up at at leat 7am in the morning to get to work on time. Winter is depressing enough without having to face waking up in darkness for even longer of the year than now.
If there is to be any change to the daylight hours in this country it should be to scrap BST completely and leave the country on UT for the whole year. We want daylight in the mornings not an extra hour in the afternoon when everyone is at work anyway. Who cares if it gets dark at 3:30 or 4:30 when you're stuck at work. You're going home in the dark which ever. Welcome to the realities of living in the part of the world you do!
James Barker
26th Oct 2010 at 9:33 am
I very much hope that the bill precipitates a change in the daylight saving hours - to keep the summer time through the winter ie the clocks do not go back and then to add an extra hour the following spring to have double "British summer time". If politicians wanted a quick fix for raising the morale of the nation in these stringent times, this would be it.
Fingers crossed that this legislation becomes law.
Christopher Francis
7th Sep 2010 at 1:29 pm
Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd
Myles Kelly
4th Dec 2010 at 10:32 am