Double British Summer Time
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Spring is in the air, and it is almost time for a familiar ritual. On Sunday, the clocks will go forward by an hour, and our evenings will become lighter overnight as British summer time begins. Frankly, each time the clocks go forward and back, it is a bit of a faff. I think we have all looked in confusion at the clock on the car dashboard, trying to remember how on earth to change it. I understand that clock mechanics will be carrying out the task of adjusting the time on more than 2,000 clocks across the parliamentary estate, including on Big Ben —no mean feat! I have to say that I am always a lot happier with the spring clock change than with the autumn one, which plunges our communities into longer evenings of darkness.
Is this the right time system for today? I think it is time to talk about time. It was in 1907 that the first serious proposal for daylight saving time was made in Britain. Angry at the lack of daylight during summer mornings, a campaigner by the name of William Willett self-published a pamphlet called “The Waste of Daylight”. Although he did not live to see his proposal enacted, British summer time was first established during world war one by the Summer Time Act 1916, which is still in force today.
However, it is the experiment during the second world war—British double summer time—to which I would like to turn today. As Britain faced peril, Winston Churchill took the decision to move the clocks two hours in advance of Greenwich mean time in the summer and one hour in advance of GMT during the winter months. Why? To save energy. The crisis at the time meant that bold ideas were required. We needed to think outside the box.
Today we face a different emergency—the climate crisis—but one for which the same prescription could really help. I believe that we should learn the lessons of wartime Britain and move to double summer time: one hour ahead of GMT in the winter and two hours ahead in the summer months. We know that we must cut our emissions and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. We have a Labour Government who are seizing the moment, through Great British Energy—our new, publicly owned clean energy company—and by retrofitting homes to help families to save money on their energy bills and reduce emissions as the warm homes plan accelerates.
Another immediate, practical and effective way to cut emissions could be to make better use of the daylight that we have. By choosing Churchill time, we can reduce our energy use and lower our carbon footprint. When it is lighter in the evenings, households and businesses switch on lights and heating later. That small shift, spread across millions of homes, adds up to a significant difference. Researchers at the University of Cambridge found that an extra daily hour of sunlight in winter evenings could save £485 million in electricity bills each year. They calculated a saving of 6 GWh of energy per winter day. It would reduce carbon dioxide pollution by at least 447,000 tonnes each year, which is equivalent to more than 50,000 cars driving all the way around the world.
Evidence from Queen’s University Belfast shows that Churchill time would reduce evening peak energy demands by up to 10%—roughly 5 GW of electricity taken off the grid during the busiest time of day—offering significant reductions in energy costs and emissions. All that is great news for the planet. Lighter evenings mean more time spent outdoors, in parks or on walks. They mean more time visiting cafés and pubs on our high streets, giving local businesses, particularly in the hospitality and retail sectors, a much-needed boost. When the sun sets at 4 o’clock, people rush home; they do not linger in our town centres or high streets or stop for a coffee. When the sun sets at 5 pm or 6 pm, we change the rhythm of our days. We create opportunities for commerce, connection and community. That would especially be the case in autumn half term.
In 2011, the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions claimed that lighter evenings would increase tourism earnings by between £2.5 billion and £3.5 billion and would bring increased tax revenues and have a positive impact on the UK’s balance of payments, particularly from overseas visitors. This week, the Tourism Alliance told me that there is a real case for Churchill time to boost tourism in the so-called shoulder seasons, helping more visitors to enjoy everything our amazing country has to offer all year round, which means jobs and growth.
Some will ask, “What about the mornings? Don’t we need light in the mornings?” Those are fair questions. However, the evidence tells us that the cost of dark evenings is higher than the cost of dark mornings. Studies show that road collisions increase by 19% in the two weeks after the clocks go back in October. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents points out that during the working week, accidents are always higher in the afternoon/evening peak than in the morning peak. For much of the winter, during that most dangerous afternoon/evening peak, about an hour and a half is currently in darkness. This change would more than halve that.
Similarly, the AA estimates that around 100 lives a year would be saved by reducing accidents in the dark evenings. Brake, the road safety charity, told me ahead of this debate that with five people killed on our roads every day, more strategies that reduce road deaths and injuries can only be a positive thing.
Changing to lighter evenings could prevent hundreds of accidents and injuries every year. That is not just statistics; it is lives protected, hospital beds freed up and families spared tragedy. The result would be fewer injuries, less pressure on our emergency services and reduced strain on our national health service.
Sunshine cheers us up, too. According to the NHS, a lack of sunlight may lead to lower serotonin levels, which is linked to feelings of depression. Getting outside has many mood-boosting benefits.
“Surely the health, the refreshment, the happiness of such a gift cannot be overestimated!”—[Official Report, 8 May 1916; Vol. 82, c. 305.]
That is what the then hon. Member for Blackburn said in this place back in 1916 when debating daylight saving time. Lamenting the waste of daylight, he asked your predecessor, Madam Deputy Speaker, if there could
“be a more wasteful, more unhygienic, more senseless proceeding” —[Official Report, 8 May 1916; Vol. 82, c. 304.]
I will not go quite that far.
Simply put, I believe that we should make the most of what we have. I urge the Minister to consider letting us spring forward to a greener and brighter future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing this debate. I am grateful for her insights and remarks on this important topic, which, as she explained, impacts on everyone’s lives in one way or another. She described the clocks changing as a bit of a faff, which I think we can all appreciate. She then went on to discuss the reasons she advocates for this change in great detail. In my remarks, I will go on to explain why there are also potential negatives to what is being proposed.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, seasonal clock changes were first proposed in the early 1900s to extend daylight hours for recreation, to improve health and to save on lighting costs. At the time, clocks were set to Greenwich mean time all year round, resulting in early sunrises and sunsets in the summer. The idea gained traction during the first world war because of the need to conserve coal, which led to the adoption of changes in 1916. Biannual clock changes have continued ever since, with a brief deviation from the pattern during the second world war, when double British summer time was introduced, and between 1968 and 1972, when the clocks were put forward but not back as part of an experiment. I think those were also the first four years of my parents’ marriage, an experiment that thankfully has lasted much longer. It was eventually discontinued, however, due to inconclusive results regarding its effect on road casualties.
About 70 countries worldwide currently adopt some form of daylight saving. British summer time is the UK’s version of European summer time, which follows the same pattern by changing the clocks twice a year by one hour. This synchronisation allows for smooth transactions in trade, travel and communication across Europe.
The Government are aware that the issue of daylight saving has, at times, attracted extensive public and political debate, with suggestions to adopt British double summer time. British double summer time was introduced for a short period during the second world war, as I have mentioned. By extending daylight hours into the evening, it reduced the need for artificial lighting, thereby conserving fuel. Introducing British double summer time would result in clocks remaining one hour ahead of Greenwich mean time in the winter and moving two hours ahead in the summer.
By observing British summer time, the UK maintains a one-hour difference with European countries throughout the year. This would not be the case under British double summer time. Using Germany as an example, the time difference with it would vary between winter and summer. In winter, both the UK and Germany would be one hour ahead of GMT, resulting in no time difference. During summer, the UK would be one hour ahead of Germany.
The Government believe that the current daylight saving arrangements represent the optimal use of the available daylight across the UK. Changing the current arrangements would impact all citizens in the UK and Northern Ireland and would require public consultation and assessment of the impact on businesses across all sectors of the economy.
As my hon. Friend has mentioned, there would of course be benefits to moving to double British summer time. We know that darker hours exacerbate mental health conditions, particularly seasonal affective disorder. The shorter days and reduced natural daylight, as a result of clock changes, can worsen symptoms according to the charity Change Mental Health.
We also know that there is evidence that enforced clock changes can disrupt sleep health, especially in a forward direction such as that which currently occurs in March—and will be happening again in three days’ time. However, we also know from the British Sleep Society that natural daylight in the morning is critical for alignment of our internal body clocks. Moving to double British summer time would cause darker mornings, especially in winter.
We are also aware of some evidence that abolishing clock changes would reduce road accidents. Analysis from the RAC Foundation and Road Safety Analysis shows that between 2012 and 2017 there was a 2% increase in road accidents over the two fortnightly periods when the clock changes took place. In terms of energy use, keeping to GMT plus 1 during the winter months might be expected to reduce overall energy use, as people use less artificial light in the evenings. However, the effects are likely to be small in magnitude, and may even be uncertain—there might be no effect at all.
The most significant effects are likely to be associated with lighting demand as demand switches from the evening to the morning. While there might be some benefits, there would be a risk of the UK energy system being affected by the time zone choices of neighbouring countries with which it trades gas and electricity. For example, the time difference between the UK and France means that peak demand is staggered across the two countries and allows for interconnectors to play a role in meeting peak demand throughout the year. This results in lower energy generation required in Great Britain and lower prices for consumers. If the time difference were to change, that could have impacts across the energy system, including on the benefits assumed from interconnection.
There might also be road safety impacts. Advancing the clock in spring creates a short-term disruption in sleeping patterns, which can cause fatigue. This can lead to inattention, poor decision making and delayed reaction times, all of which are contributing factors to road traffic accidents. Summer time arrangements have led to concerns about the disrupted biorhythms of animals, with respect to changing milking and feeding schedules, although of course these impacts are expected to be reduced due to the deployment of new equipment, artificial lighting and automated technologies.
The approach to daylight saving is a complex area, given the importance of just-in-time supply chains to many industries. Many sectors and businesses, example in the aviation industry, would need considerable notice of any such change.
There have been examinations of all this in the past. Following a call for evidence, the House of Lords report “Clock changes: is it time for change?” found that the abolition of seasonal changes of time in the UK in any circumstances would require adjustments in sectors ranging from transport to energy and software development. Such adjustments would bring some transition costs, which could be burdensome for industries when scheduling, especially internationally, which would be a concern, particularly for aviation. In that report, the European Union Committee concluded that it did not receive compelling evidence to suggest that the current system of seasonal changes is problematic for the UK, while noting that there is a lack of contemporary studies on the subject.
Moving to double British summer time would create a time border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, if Ireland maintained its current approach to time. That non-alignment could cause problems for transport, particularly aviation, tourism, trade and business in general, with higher impacts if there was only a part-year alignment. This view is not only held by UK industries and representing bodies; it was also reported in EU and non-EU countries’ responses to a 2018 European Commission consultation.
In the UK, seasonal changes of time facilitate lighter evenings for over half the year and reduce morning darkness in winter. The latter effect is particularly pronounced in northern parts of the UK, especially Scotland. Double British summer time in the north of Scotland would mean no daylight in the winter before 10 am, while in the rest of Scotland sunrise would be at 9 am. Opponents of change point out that in Scotland children would have to travel to and from school in darkness. As pointed out by the Scottish Government in their written evidence to the Lords Committee, farm vehicles and other large vehicles would spend more time on the roads during the hours of darkness, further adding to the risks.
In 2012 the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published a review of the scope, quality and robustness of available evidence regarding clock changes. The review found that there are challenges in looking at the overall picture of the impacts that might occur across a range of issues, including energy consumption and road traffic accidents.
To conclude, this Government will always listen carefully to any arguments that are put forward around how to mitigate challenges and provide support, particularly in areas such as mental health. We appreciate the concerns raised about the potential impact of clock changes on mental health and road safety, and we will always welcome views on how we can enhance our existing measures and initiatives.
As set out in our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, the Government are committed to expanding access to NHS talking therapies for adults with common mental health conditions such as depression, including seasonal affective disorder. This Government treat road safety with the utmost seriousness, and we are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed and injured on our roads. My ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport are developing the first road safety strategy in over a decade, and will set out more details in due course.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard again for securing the debate. She has raised some interesting points, but the evidence for the case for change is not overwhelming. However, I will take this opportunity to remind everyone that the clocks go forward on Sunday, and it is also Mother’s Day.
Question put and agreed to.