British Time (Extra Daylight) Bill
[Bill 15 1995/96]
Research Paper 96/4
15 January 1996
Mr John Butterfill, who came top of the Ballot, has introduced the British Time (Extra
Daylight) Bill [Bill 15 1995/96] which seeks to move Great Britain out of Greenwich Mean
Time (GMT) and into Central European Time (CET; GMT+1 in winter and GMT+2 in
summer). The Government has traditionally not voiced an opinion on this matter and there
will be a free vote on the Bill, but the Secretary of State for Scotland has come out strongly
against any switch to CET.
Patsy Hughes
Science and Environment Section
House of Commons Library
Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and their
personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members
and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction
A.
B.
C.
D.
Longitude effects: tim e zones
Latitude effects: daylength
Shifting the clocks
Adoption of sum m ertim e in the UK and Europe
II. Pressure for change to CET
A. Private Mem bers' Bills in the Lords
B. British Tim e (Extra Daylight) Bill
C. Daylight Extra
III. The British Standard Time (BST) experiment
A. Road casualties
B. The debate which followed the B ST experim ent
C. Safety of school children and others in the mornings
5
5
5
6
6
8
8
9
10
10
10
14
16
IV. Scotland
18
V.
22
Other considerations
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
The 1989 Green Paper
Energy
Crime
Leisure and touris m
Com m unications, trade, transport
Agriculture
General well being and health
22
22
23
24
25
26
27
Further reading
29
Acronyms
29
I. Introduction
A. Longitude effects; tim e zones
Britain is in the Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) time zone, along with other countries at the
same longitude position including West Africa, Iceland and Ireland. When it is midday in
the GMT time zone it is dawn in the USA to the west, dusk in India to the east and midnight
in Fiji, on the other side of the earth.
For every 15° of longitude, the international time zone system changes by one hour. Much
of Europe is slightly to the east of us and one hour ahead of us. This time zone, GMT+1
hour, is called the Central European Time zone (CET). Greece, slightly further to the east
again, operates on GMT+2 hours. The international time zone system is shown in Appendix
3 at the back of this paper. It should be noted that although Portugal is on roughly the same
longitude as the UK it now operates on CET.
B. Latitude effects; daylength
The length of days changes through the year because the earth spins on a tilted rather than
a vertical axis. In winter the northern hemisphere and UK are tilted away from the sun, so
nights (the time in shadow) are long and days, when the sun appears low in the sky, are
short. In summer we are tilted towards the sun, which appears high in the sky, giving us
more time in the light (days are long and nights are short)1. In the southern hemisphere of
course the opposite effect results.
At the Poles the effect is at its most accentuated, causing the summer nights of the midnight
sun when the sun is so high in the sky that it never sets. Conversely, at the Equator the
effect is negligible. The tilted spin of the Earth is the reason why the changes in daylight
1
A diagram illustrating this can be found in Library research paper 93/111 British Summertime: Time to decide?
5
Research Paper 96/4
hours throughout the year are more pronounced in northern Scotland than they are in southern
England.
C. Shifting the clocks
Since days are longer in the summer, by putting the clocks ahead one hour during the long
days an hour of daylight occurs in the summer evenings when it can be used for work or
leisure, rather than in the mornings while people may be still asleep. Exactly the same effect
could be achieved by getting up, going to work, and finishing work an hour earlier, which
is common practice in Norway and Sweden2. Either way, effectively the sun rises one hour
later and sets one hour later; the idea is that the extra morning darkness will not be noticed
by most people, but the extra hour of light in the evenings will be a bonus for many.
Problems arise when morning rather than evening daylight is considered most important; this
is why the traditional opponents of extra summertime have been postal workers, the
construction industry, farmers and the Scots, who have a shorter winter day anyway and voice
concern particularly about children going to school on dark mornings.
Of course altering our clocks or activity patterns has no effect whatsoever on the fact that
daylight hours are short in the winter. Regardless of the time zone within which the various
European countries operate, since they are all quite high up in the northern hemisphere, they
all adopt summertime to make use of the longer summer days, and shift back in the winter
when days shorten again.
D. Adoption of sum m ertim e in the UK and Europe
The 1908 Daylight Saving Bill was the first attempt in the UK to move clocks forward one
hour in summer. The idea was to provide more daylight hours after work for the training of
the Territorial Army and for recreation, to reduce shunting accidents on the railway and to
reduce expenditure on lighting. There were objections that the proposals would disrupt traffic
with Europe, interfere with business transactions with the USA, keep children up late and
cause difficulties for the agricultural community, and the attempt failed3.
2
Summer Time: A Consultation Document. Home Office Cm 722 June 1989
3
ibid
6
Research Paper 96/4
During the Great War in 1916, Germany initiated the adoption of summertime when it
introduced daylight saving in the summer, and France, Portugal, Italy, Holland, Denmark,
Norway, Sweden and Austria followed suit.
This annulled some arguments against summertime adoption by the UK. To save energy and
help the war effort, the 1916 Summer Time Act advanced the clocks in Great Britain for one
hour from 21 May until 1 October. After a year of this a consultation exercise indicated that
the system was very popular. Since then summertime has always been adopted in the UK,
although there have been periods, notably during the Second World War, when the start and
end dates have been altered or more substantial clock shifts have been made. From 1968-71
the British Standard Time experiment was adopted in the UK, when summertime (GMT+1)
was retained throughout the year, but the experiment was abandoned following a vote in the
House. Details are given in section III.
By the mid 1970s, most of Europe had moved into the Central European Time zone. Various
Member States had also adopted summertime, with their own dates for starting and ending.
After a confusing situation had developed, in 1975 a Commission working party proposed that
the dates of summertime should be harmonised. No change was recommended on time zones;
because of their longitude it was accepted that the UK and Ireland would remain one hour
behind the other countries. Because of their northern latitude and being reluctant to shorten
their days in September, the UK and Ireland were also allowed to keep the end of October
rather than the end of September as the date of return to wintertime.
Since 1980 European summertime arrangements have been laid down by a series of EC
summertime Directives. After the sixth Directive was adopted the Commission noted that
the system of two end dates was giving rise to transport and communication problems, and
suggested that the end of October would be the most appropriate date to adopt for the return
to wintertime, especially since a Eurobarometer survey in all Member States had revealed that
public opinion was 'very much in favour of having summer time extended until the end of
October'.
The seventh Directive on summertime arrangements was implemented in the UK under the
Summer Time Order 1994 (SI 1994/1357). In 1996 and 1997 the Directive will harmonise
the on- and offset of summertime by making the other Member States change their clocks at
the same time as the UK (at the end of October, rather than September). Although the
clocks will now be changed at the same time throughout Europe, we will remain in the GMT
rather than the CET time zone, so the one hour time difference between the UK and Ireland
and most of the rest of Europe will be unaffected. The present Bill seeks to change this.
7
Research Paper 96/4
II. Pressure for change to CET
A. Private Mem bers' Bills in the Lords
Viscount Mountgarret introduced his Bill Central European Time into the House of Lords
during the 1994-5 session. The Bill sought to move England, Wales and Northern Ireland,
but not Scotland, into Central European Time. During the Bill's second reading4 (the only
stage in the Lords not passed formally) Viscount Mountgarret pointed out that the
Government had been considering the issue of whether to move to CET for some considerable
time, and Lord Jenkins agreed that there had been 'long years of procrastination, hesitation
and postponement'. However, along with several other Peers who spoke in the debate, Lord
Jenkins had reservations about creating a time frontier between England and Scotland. The
Bill was sent to the Commons on 20 February 1995, but made no further progress.
This session, Viscount Montgomery of Alamein has already introduced his Western European
Time Bill [HL Bill 5 of 1995/96] into the House of Lords. Introducing his Bill for its second
reading in the Lords on 29 November5, Viscount Montgomery said it covered the whole of
the UK, and that even the most severe opponents of change would agree that the UK must
remain in one time zone. He said that one of his objectives was to stop the Government from
sitting on the fence. The Bill seeks to establish British summertime in winter (GMT+1) and
British double summer time (GMT+2) in the summer. Although this would move us
effectively into CET, the Bill's title is intended to reflect the geographical area comprising the
UK, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland and the Benelux countries. Viscount
Montgomery welcomed Mr Butterfill's decision to introduce a similar Bill into the Commons
and anticipated a twin-track approach. The Bill was passed at third reading on 20 December6
and sent to the Commons; by coincidence its second reading is also set for 19 January but
it is low on the list for debate. House of Lords Library Note The Western European Time
Bill7 gives further background.
4
HL Deb 11 January 1995 cc243-284
HL Deb 29 November 1995 cc660-690
6
HL Deb 20 December 1995 c1671
7
27 November 1995
5
8
Research Paper 96/4
B. British Time (Extra Daylight) Bill
Mr John Butterfill came top of the ballot and has introduced his British Time (Extra Daylight)
Bill [Bill 15 1995/96]. This has the same aims as Viscount Montgomery's bill; to move us
into CET (GMT+1 in winter and GMT+2 in summer).
Initial press reports indicated passive Government support for the Bill, with the notable
exception of the Scottish Office. Mr Forsyth has come out strongly against the Bill, and
is reported to have persuaded the Cabinet not to actively lend its support to or provide any
extra time for the measure, saying that it is 'misguided, unnecessary and would be deeply
damaging in Scotland'8. The effects of switching to CET in Scotland are discussed in
section IV.
There have been conflicting reports concerning Mr Butterfill's intentions regarding the
possibility of a separate time zone for Scotland. Scotland on Sunday claimed in December9
that Mr Butterfill had told the newspaper that the idea of "different time zones for Scotland
and England was 'foolish'. He denied opponents' claims that he had suggested this as a
compromise at an earlier stage".
Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to make the 'time for general purposes' one hour in advance of
Greenwich Mean Time.
Clause 2 amends the Summer Time Act 1972 to substitute the
words 'two hours' in place of 'one hour' in section 1(1) (Advance of time during period of
summer time). Clause 3 amends the Interpretation Act 1978 regarding references in statute
to the time of day, and finally Clause 4 states that the Bill should come into effect at 2am
on 26 October 1997. The Bill does not explicitly state to which countries it applies but the
1972 Act10 applies to Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
8
'Ministers march to Euro-time' Guardian 13 December 1995 p.3; 'MPs get free vote on harmonising daylight
hours' Daily Telegraph p.12 and 'Daylight hours set for veto' Financial Times p.8; both 14 December 1995;
'Times may not be a-changin' ' Financial Times 22 December 1995 p.12
9
24 December 1995 'SOS Poll: Time-up for clock plan'
10
Chapter 6
9
Research Paper 96/4
C. Daylight Extra
This pressure group, which is lobbying for the adoption of the present bill, was formed in
1989. Among the organisations whose support it claims are11;
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and RoSPA Scotland, Age
Concern (England and Wales), the AA and RAC, the Police Federation, the Association of
Chief Police Officers (Scotland), the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the CBI, the Scottish National
Chambers of Commerce and Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Sports
Councils, the British Medical Association, and the England, Northern Ireland and Wales
Tourist Boards.
Dr Mayer Hillman of the Policy Studies Institute (PSI), an independent research organisation
and educational charity run on a non-profit basis, has made detailed studies of the CET
option12, and has also become a leading force for change.
III. The British Standard Time (BST) experiment
In the 1960s, the Government decided to test the support for continuous summertime. A three
year experiment was introduced from 1968-1971 when summertime (GMT+1) applied
throughout the year. This was given the name British Standard Time (BST).
The
Government gave an undertaking that a comprehensive review would be carried out before
any decision was taken at the end of the BST experiment. The White Paper13 which followed
in 1970 said that it was impossible to quantify advantages and disadvantages and that a final
decision would need to rest largely on a qualitative decision.
A. Road casualties
The Department of Transport's Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL) initial
calculations made after the BST experiment indicated that more people were injured in the
darker mornings, but fewer people were injured in the lighter afternoons. The initial 1970
estimates used data from earlier winters for comparison and were, over two winters, an
11
Daylight Extra ... Now Lobby Notes for the present debate
Time for Change Setting clocks forward by one hour throughout the year A new review of the evidence.
12
Mayer Hillman PSI 1993
13
Cmnd 4512, Review of British Standard Time
10
Research Paper 96/4
increase of 900 people killed or seriously injured (KSI) in the morning, but a decrease of
3600 KSI in the evenings, giving a net reduction of 2700 KSI.14
The Builders' Confederation pointed out that such calculations did not take into account the
fact that drink/drive legislation was passed in 1969. A recent letter to the Guardian from
Kate Hoey, Phil Gallie, Charles Kennedy and Andrew Welsh agrees and cites further safety
advances which would need to be allowed for15. The TRRL itself has acknowledged that the
basis of the initial 1970 calculations is not precisely known, and it has carried out more
sophisticated reanalyses of the data.
The TRRL recalculated the BST experiment figures comparing them with accident data from
the subsequent years 1969-1975. The TRRL says that the after-effects of the introduction of
drink/drive legislation in 1967 can be allowed for16;
'...only two parts of the day are relevant; the hours in the morning when sunrise occurred
during the winters (with either BST or GMT) and the hours in the afternoon when sunset
occurred. By focusing on these two periods, the effects of BST should be shown most
clearly; BST could have no effect on the number of accidents occurring at those times of day
which would be either light or dark under both systems. In particular, the analysis should not
be confused by the after-effects of the drink/drive legislation implemented in the autumn of
1967, which were largely confined to the late evening'.
The TRRL's re-analysis agreed broadly with the earlier estimates although the morning
increase was slightly higher, giving for one winter (1969-70) a net reduction of 1120 KSI and
of 2340 injured. The full data expressed for age groups are shown in the table in Appendix
1, taken from the TRRL report17.
The new analysis provided some important extra information. Fatalities were included for the
first time and the net reduction in these for all ages was 230 over one winter. This
represented a reduction of 8% compared with the total number of fatalities for that winter
(2960). Since the reduction in the number KSI was 3% and for all casualties was 2%, the
benefits of the BST experiment were greatest for the most serious accidents.
The TRRL was also able to split the data into road user groups, age groups and geographical
regions. The number of injured cyclists rose, but the 5-15 year old age group, pedestrians
14
The potential effects on road casualties of Double British Summer Time , TRRL Research Report 228, DoT
1989 p.2
15
''Caught in the present time zone' Guardian 15 December 1995 p.18
16
The potential effects on road casualties of Double British Summer Time , TRRL Research Report 228, DoT
1989 p.2
17
op cit p.3
11
Research Paper 96/4
and those living in Central England and Southern Scotland benefitted especially from the
experiment. The only region in which the number of injuries rose was Northern Scotland (a
net increase of 29 KSI in Northern Scotland although there was still a net decrease of 57
casualties; see table below). Unfortunately the area of the regions used was large (see the
map in Appendix 218), presumably because smaller areas would have provided insufficiently
large numbers for analysis, so Northern Scotland as defined included much of the country.
However, by these large regions, the casualty reductions associated with the retention of BST
in the winter of 1969-70 were as follows (net reductions; there is only one increase):
Fatalities
KSI
All
casualties
SE England
-54
-339
-1006
SW England
-
-77
-225
Midlands
-26
-342
-450
Wales
-
-51
-30
N England
-78
-222
-251
S Scotland
-
-136
-333
N Scotland
-
29
-57
Where the casualty data were insufficient to complete the calculations, a blank is shown.
The TRRL report concluded that
'In summary, the retention of BST during the winter of 1969-70 led to a reduction of about
230 in the number of fatalities, 1100 in the number killed or seriously injured, and 2350 in
the number injured ... BST was especially effective in reducing the number of fatalities. The
groups which benefitted most from the change were those aged 5-15, pedestrians and those
living in Central England and Southern Scotland.
'The decision to terminate the experiment led to increased fatalities and casualties, especially
among those groups which had benefitted most from the retention of BST during the winter...'.
18
ibid
12
Research Paper 96/4
The TRRL went on to simulate the effects of introducing Central European Time19 in the UK
by considering changes in casualty totals under the altered lighting conditions that would
occur, using appropriate statistical modelling techniques. The TRRL concluded that had CET
been applied in 1987
160 fewer people would have been killed (3.1% of the national total)
810 fewer people would have been killed or seriously injured (1.2%)
2060 fewer people would have been injured (0.7%).
At today's prices the total economic benefit of these reductions would be about £130m. The
report considered possible sources of bias; using a chain of statistical models can only ever
give estimates, but on the other hand the above figures were based on analyses of relatively
urban areas well equipped with streetlighting, thus helping to take into account the
development of more efficient streetlighting in the years since the BST experiment.
The 1989 TRRL report considered that the above estimates provided a20
'reasonably reliable guide to the consequences of [CET]. Various factors have been identified
which could affect the outcome. It is concluded that these estimates are slightly conservative:
the actual reduction could be slightly greater'.
The most recently updated estimates are those given by Mr Norris to Mr Keith Hill on 20
December 1995.
Had double summer time (aka CET) been adopted by Great Britain in
21
1994 :
'...approximately 2,080 casualties of all severities would have been saved in 1994, including
110 deaths and 590 serious injuries. These estimates are based on an analysis of accidents
in the period 1968 to 1971 when summertime continued throughout the year, compared to
years when it did not, and take account of subsequent changes in accident patterns and vehicle
usage ... These are GB estimates and cannot be taken to show what might happen in any
particular part of the country where special circumstances may exist.'
Road accident figures for Scotland are further discussed in section IV.
19
synonymous with both Double British Summer Time and Single/Double Summer Time; GMT+1 in the winter
and GMT+2 in the summer as proposed by Mr Butterfill's bill
20
The potential effects on road casualties of Double British Summer Time , TRRL Research Report 228, DoT
1989 p.10
21
HC Deb 20 December 1995 c1188w
13
Research Paper 96/4
B. The debate which followed the B ST experim ent
The experiment was debated in the Commons on 2 December 197022 and by a vote of 366
to 81 the British Standard Time experiment was discontinued. This overwhelming rejection
was perhaps surprising since at the beginning of the debate the then Home Secretary Mr
Reginald Maudling quoted polls carried out 'over the whole country' which showed that in
mid-winter 50% of the population had favoured staying on BST and 41% wanted to return
to GMT; in the spring these figures were 51% and 39% respectively. However, the Commons
vote probably reflected in part fears about the safety of children on their way to school; little
faith was placed in the accident figures available which showed a net decrease in road
accidents. In addition, the poll figures for Scotland alone were 61% of people favouring a
return to GMT and only 34% wanting to stay on BST. Mr Maudling made an observation
which probably holds true today23
'It is clear that those who are against British Standard Time feel more strongly than those who
are in favour'
Mr Hamish Gray, Member for Ross and Cromarty making his maiden speech, summed up the
objections to the BST experiment. His arguments were echoed by several other Members
during the debate and probably encapsulate the reasons why the experiment was discontinued;
'...the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers wrote to me
"Our union is overwhelmingly opposed to the continuation of BST".
'The difficulties which have been created are immense. They include the care of animals;
farm vehicles using unlit country roads, frequently in bad weather conditions; getting stock
to market, with the impossibility of loading before daylight and the subsequent disorganisation
of transport; the intense cold before sunrise; the hopeless situation on building sites even
where the site is lit - and many are not. Men face dangers because of shadows and icy
conditions, and many building operations which are relatively easy in daylight become
impossible in artificial light. Postmen, Post Office engineers, municipal workers and delivery
men all suffer a marked decline in their working conditions. BST causes hazards for children
on their way to school, and for the elderly. Housewives who go early to shop or to work
suffer difficulties'.
22
HC Deb 2 December 1970 cc1331-1422
c1334
23
14
Research Paper 96/4
Supporters of CET say that improved electricity supplies to remote areas and modern farming
practices would go some way towards alleviating some of these problems24. Later in the
debate Miss Mary Holt MP said that although admittedly there had been a drop in pedestrian
casualties, the figures included the results of the breathalyser and such had to be treated with
caution25. As noted above, the TRRL believes its figures now exclude the effects of drinkdrive legislation.
Since the experiment it has been alleged by groups in favour of change that the outcome of
the vote was affected by powerful lobbying by farmers, the building industry and the Scots,
who had overwhelmed a 'silent majority'. It has also been alleged that this lobbying was
helped by the Press producing on their front pages 'lurid photographs of a few children injured
on the way to school in the dark'26.
According to Mayer Hillman of the PSI27
'The small increase in the road accidents on the darker winter mornings, especially among
children on their way to school, which occurred during the experimental period of 1968 to
1971 of maintaining BST throughout the year seems to have been so imprinted on the public
memory that the far more substantial decrease stemming from the lighter late afternoons in
the winter and evenings in the summer has been overlooked. The number of deaths and
serious injuries and of damage-only accidents on the roads would now be reduced by over 600
a year, with an estimated saving of over £200 million. All the main organisations concerned
with safety have indicated their support for the adoption of [CET]. '
The Building Employer's Confederation (BEC)28 has contended that factors such as the
introduction of 70 mph speed limits and of the breathalyser test could have contributed to the
fall in accident figures around the time of the BST experiment (although by basing their
simulations on accident data from years subsequent to the experiment the TRRL partly take
such factors into account). The BEC has also drawn attention to the following comments
made by the Home Secretary during the debate29
'There has been a surprising and sad increase in the number of child casualties between 6 pm
and 7 pm, which is not wholly explained and which rather bedevils the figures at this point.
I honestly should not like to try to advise the House one way or the other. I do not think that
the figures could prove that the increase in casualties in the morning is not more than balanced
24
Time For Change. Setting Clocks Forward by One Hour throughout the Year. A new review of the evidence .
Mayer Hillman, Policy Studies Institute, October 1993 p. 29
25
HC Deb 2 December 1970 c1349
26
Time For Change. Setting Clocks Forward by One Hour throughout the Year. A new review of the evidence .
Mayer Hillman, Policy Studies Institute, October 1993
27
ibid p.5
28
Keep Summertime British. Building Employers Confederation's submission to the Home Office. 1989
29
HC Deb 2 December 1970 c1335
15
Research Paper 96/4
by the decrease in casualties in the afternoon ... I think that we should assume one way or
another that there is not a large margin either way.'
Mr Maudling also noted that
'... the figures, like most statistics, are open to argument; but it is fair to say that the crude
figures show a certain saving of casualties over the period [of the BST experiment]. I accept
straight away that these figures must be accepted and treated with a good deal of reserve'.
However, at that time the only figures available were those in the White Paper30 and although
the TRRL had produced some figures on the day of the debate, the Home Secretary had not
yet seen these, which were in any case the preliminary calculations later revised by the TRRL.
It would be fair to place much more faith in the treatments of the data produced subsequently
by the TRRL than Mr Maudling was able to place in the figures available to him during the
debate.
C. Safety of school children and others in the mornings
The BEC has alleged that children travelling to school on dark mornings would face greater
risk from road traffic accidents, and that children delivering newspapers would also be more
at risk, since it says postmen had shown an increase in accidents from 2% to 5% of the total
workforce during the experiment31.
The safety of children travelling to and from school is a real concern to many of those
considering CET. The further north children live, the more likely they are to have to go to
school in the dark in the winter. CET would mean that even more children would go to
school in the dark for part of the year. Crucially, in this case CET would provide no
compensation in the afternoons as happens with road traffic accidents in general, because
with most schools going home at 3 or 4 pm, children are travelling home in daylight in any
case. There are no data on the safety of school children during the BST experiment, and
the 1989 Green Paper concluded that 'the possibility of a small net increase in child road
casualties under [CET] cannot be ruled out if school hours in the winter remain unchanged'32.
30
Cmnd. 4512
Keep Summertime British. Building Employers Confederation's submission to the Home Office. 1989
32
Summertime; A consultation document Cm 722 Home Office June 1989 p.13
31
16
Research Paper 96/4
However, according to an Answer given by Mr Robert Key in 199333:
'Based on 1991 road accident data, the Transport Research Laboratory has estimated that a
total of 29 fatalities, 125 serious injuries and 140 slight injuries to children under the age of
16 could be saved in Great Britain if double British summer time [CET] were adopted.'
Mayer Hillman of the PSI believes for several reasons that children are now at less risk going
to school in the dark than they were during the BST experiment. For instance, children are
today increasingly taken to school by car, they go to school on only half the days of the year,
Christmas holidays coincide with the darkest days and most (89%) childhood traffic accidents
occur other than on the way to and from school34.
The 1989 Green Paper noted that a switch to CET might lead to an increase in accidents on
building and other sites on winter mornings when lighting was artificial or weak; the BEC has
said that artificial lighting is never as good as natural. It also noted the argument that
milkmen and postmen might be more prone to assault. The possibility that certain work or
school hours could be altered to begin an hour later in the winter (as is common practice in
Scandinavia which operates in CET) was put forward by the Green Paper, but the possibility
that this might increase traffic congestion was acknowledged.
The Building Employers' Confederation, the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors and
the Electrical Contractors' Association have all rejected the suggestion that their workers
should start and end work an hour later under CET, since this would move them into the main
rush hours, so increasing congestion and lateness, and delaying the delivery of materials.
However, the Green Paper concluded that it was not clear how decisive the arguments against
CET were; the available evidence, although incomplete, did 'not support the theory that [CET]
would result in more accidents, crime or lost production in winter'35.
Rather perversely, the TRRL when considering its accident data even pointed out that altering
the working hours of construction workers (the leading example of an occupational group
expecting to be disadvantaged by CET) might mean reduced casualties among that group of
travellers; when roads are more congested impact velocities and risk of injury during road
accidents are lower36.
33
HC Deb 16 December 1993 c832w
Time for Change Setting clocks forward by one hour throughout the year A new review of the evidence.
Mayer Hillman PSI 1993
35
Summertime; A consultation document Cm 722 Home Office June 1989 p.26
36
The potential effects on road casualties of Double British Summer Time , TRRL Research Report 228, DoT
1989 p.10
34
17
Research Paper 96/4
IV. Scotland
At higher latitudes in the northern hemisphere, Scotland shows greater extremes in the extent
of its daylight hours than England and Wales (see Introduction). The long warm summer
days and evenings in Scotland are matched by very short and cold winter days.
The times of dawn and dusk under Central European Time with summertime (ie. GMT+1 in
winter, GMT+2 in summer) on the longest and shortest days would be roughly as follows
(there are slight yearly variations)37:
21 June 1996
Rise
Set
21 Dec 1996
Rise
Set
Lerwick
04.39 23.34
10.09 15.58
Stornoway
05.19 23.34
10.11 16.36
Lochinver
05.15 23.30
10.07 16.32
Peterhead
05.08 23.10
09.48 16.23
Glasgow
05.31 23.06
09.46 16.45
Belfast
05.47 23.04
09.44 17.00
Newcastle
05.27 22.49
09.29 16.39
Enniskillen
05.56 23.10
09.50 17.08
London
05.43 22.21
09.04 16.54
Haverfordwest
06.01 22.43
09.25 17.11
Lands End
06.13 23.36
09.19 17.23
The short daylight hours in Scottish winters are an unfortunate geographical reality but the
question is where to place them in the day. One Scots writer in favour of a switch to CET
illustrates vividly the problem38;
'...Do what he will, the Secretary of State cannot tilt the earth on its axis. At this time of year,
eight hours of daylight is all we get; and the debate is about where, in our waking day, we
wish to have it.
37
Adapted from Whitaker's Almanack 1996
'Bloody-minded battle rages on the shortest day's journey into night: Joyce McMillan challenges the forces
of darkness arrayed against any attempt to shed light on the daylight saving debate' Scotland on Sunday 17
December 1995
38
18
Research Paper 96/4
' At the moment, we have light from 8am to 4pm; the proposal is that we have light from 9am
to 5pm. So far as rational argument goes - which, in this debate, is not very far - the
supporters of Central European Time seem to have the advantage.... But does this narrow,
debateable balance of costs and benefits have any influence on the public discussion of this
matter? Of course not. Instead, every suggestion of a change in British winter time is greeted
with the shrillest emotional abuse, sometimes enlivened by dark hints that RoSPA has been
cooking the books ... At British level, CET is seen as a European imposition which should be
resisted by all red-blooded Brits. At Scottish level, it is seen - bizarrely, given the geography
of the thing - as an English idea, which somehow robs the Scots of daylight to convenience
the soft south; hence poor Mr Butterfill's hilarious suggestion that Scotland could stay on
GMT, even if England made the change. Of course, the idea that Scots gain some special
advantage from GMT is preposterous; no power on earth can increase the measly amount of
daylight in northern Scotland in midwinter, or save its children from making dark journeys
to and from school.
'But for reasons of pride, ignorance and stiff-necked daftness, we allow our public
representatives, whenever this subject comes up, to prate about the 'Scottish objection' to
CET in terms which strongly suggest that for special reasons - no doubt to do with the
unsatisfactory terms of the Union - Scotland is the only place on earth where an hour of
light can be lost in the morning, without being gained in the afternoon.'
Mayer Hillman of the PSI has admitted that39
'it needs to be acknowledged that no one likes to start the day before dawn. Yet, in the depths
of winter, most Scots have no choice. With the current clock regime, it does not start getting
light in December and January in Glasgow and Aberdeen until about 8.30 am, and in the
Orkneys, until close on 9 am.
'...The undeniably gloomier start to the day in the winter months (for a few weeks in the north
of Scotland it would not be light until up to 10 am) would be very substantially compensated
for by the extra hour of daylight in the afternoons of these months and on every day for the
rest of the year'.
Unfortunately many Scots might feel that this was poor compensation and that they would be
making a sacrifice for the rest of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; a degree of altruism
might well be involved.
The president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland Mr John Ross has said 'Our
position has always been to resist this change because, especially in the North of Scotland,
it would mean that outside stock cannot be tended to until very late.' The view of the
Scottish NFU is that we would be entering 'the biggest time zone in the world' and that
farmers are 'extremely unhappy' with the proposal40.
39
Time for Change Setting clocks forward by one hour throughout the year A new review of the evidence.
Mayer Hillman PSI 1993
40
Herald 27 December 1995 'Safety concerns prompt RAC to support European time Bill'
19
Research Paper 96/4
Although the CBI is listed among Daylight Extra's supporters, CBI Scotland's assistant
director has reportedly written to Mr Butterfill that 'CBI Scotland believe that as traders in
a global market place there is no particular requirement for the UK to adopt CET. Indeed
the global economy and other large economic units within it, such as the USA, conduct
business successfully across a series of time zones. The net effect would be only to weaken
the UK's competitive position'41.
The marketing manager of the Edinburgh Tattoo has said: 'I don't think English MPs should
be telling us how much day or night we can have. This will have a serious effect not just on
the Tattoo but on many other events in Edinburgh and Scotland42.' Indeed, the Scottish Tourist
Board considers that any benefit from CET would be marginal, and has noted that a change
would be unpopular in Scotland43. Hillman counters by saying that the Board has overlooked
the benefits from lighter afternoons on every day of the year, which would be as likely to lead
to increased tourism in Scotland as in the rest of the UK44.
Hillman admits that 'to derive the full benefits of the reduction of road traffic accidents in the
UK, it is clear that some modification of the timing of the school and work hours for the
small population living in the north of Scotland in the winter months may be needed to avoid
a possible harmful effect there as, for a few weeks, commuter journeys in both the morning
and the late afternoon would otherwise have to be made in the dark'45.
Daylight Extra say that a NOP survey in October 1992 showed 62% in Scotland in favour of
change [to CET] with only 29% opposed. This was after TRRL accident figures had been
explained to respondents. Before this was done the survey showed that the Scots were
neutral on the issue of switching to CET, with 42% in favour and 42% against46. One source
has quoted 80% of the English as being in favour of CET47.
Scotland on Sunday has more recently published the results of a poll although the precise
wording of its questions is not expanded upon48;
41
The Scotsman 25 November 1995 'Time Bandit: Anger over 'daylight robbery' - Opposition
grows against Tory MP's proposal to put clocks forward one hour' p.3
42
ibid
43
Summertime; A consultation document Cm 722 Home Office June 1989
44
Time for Change Setting clocks forward by one hour throughout the year A new review of the evidence.
Mayer Hillman PSI 1993
45
ibid
46
Daylight Extra, Briefing Notes for MPs and Peers, 19-22 July 1993
47
'Time's free lunch'. The Guardian 23 February 1993 p. 18.
48
Scotland on Sunday 24 December 1995 'SOS Poll: Time-up for clock plan' p.2
20
Research Paper 96/4
' The latest SoS-Market Research Scotland poll, in which 1,029 people from all over Scotland
were interviewed earlier this month, suggests that 55% think putting the clocks forward is a
bad idea, 32% think it a good idea and 13% said that they don't know. In past years, other
opinion polls asking differently-worded questions have produced more favourable results for
those campaigning for change. But today's poll is the first test of opinion for more than a year.
'... If there was a change pushed through by English MPs, Scots believe they should be in a
separate time zone from England. The MRS survey revealed that 47% say Scotland should
opt out of any government move to put the clocks forward, 43% say Scotland should stay
with England; 10% don't know'.
In 1993 the Secretary of State for Scotland said that if Scotland were to adopt European Time,
estimates [based on the TRRL work] indicated savings of 5 fatalities, 23 serious and 256
slight injuries per year. Pedestrians were considered to be the group with the greatest
potential benefit. However, the Secretary of State also pointed out that injuries from other
activities in lighter evenings might rise49.
Most recently, Mr Forsyth has issued a Press Notice50 stating that Scottish Office statisticians
have reanalysed all Scottish accidents over a recent five year period in terms of the season
of the year, the time of day the accidents took place and the prevailing light conditions
measured. The Press Notice says that the TRRL analyses for Great Britain
'... did not examine comprehensive Scottish data and did not take account of specific light and
dark or weather conditions in Scotland. The results of our new analysis will show that the
effect of a change to Central European Time would be broadly neutral in terms of total road
accident casualties in Scotland.'
However, the new figures and their precise basis are as yet unavailable as is the meaning of
the term 'broadly neutral'. The claims by the Scottish Office compare to an 'annual reduction
of 60 deaths and serious injuries [KSI] and 270 slight injuries' in Scotland claimed by
Daylight Extra51 and to the TRRL figures quoted on page 12 of this paper. If the Scottish
Office is correct, it could be argued that a degree of altruism is being demanded of the Scots.
49
HCDeb 5 March 1993, c362-3w
Scottish Office General also issued in London 10 January/0024/96 'Introduction of Central European Time
would not reduce Scotland's road accident casualties -Michael Forsyth'
51
Daylight Extra ... Now Briefing notes on road safety lobby notes on present bill, undated
50
21
Research Paper 96/4
V. Other considerations
A. The 1989 Green Paper
In the late 1980s, faced with an increase in leisure time and pursuits, with the advent of the
European Single Market in 1992, and with frequent travel between countries becoming more
feasible, the Government decide to once more review the summertime arrangements and
performed a preliminary survey in 1987 which was followed by a comprehensive green paper
in 1989. Summer Time: A Consultation Document52 provided an excellent assessment of the
available data and arguments. While noting a swing in public preference towards CET, again
the conclusion was that
'no doubt the issue will be decided largely on the basis of opinion and judgement rather than
any balance-sheet of gains and losses'.
B. Energy
If waking hours were better coincided with daylight hours, lighting bills would be reduced.
This, after all, was one of the major aims of the daylight saving measures introduced during
the First and Second World Wars and during the fuel crisis of 1947. However savings are
very difficult to estimate and would not be large compared with the nation's total fuel budgets.
The only significant effects would be in lighting, rather than heating, bills.
Generally, it is likely that offices might require slightly more heating, and homes slightly less,
under CET. For instance, under CET, offices would need to be heated an hour earlier in the
morning, when it would still be cold. Such effects would probably cancel out53.
In Birmingham, it has been estimated that the sun is low enough in the sky to necessitate
artificial light for 1715 hours in the year. CET would reduce this total to 1563 hours, a
reduction of 9%54. There would also be a shift in the pattern of usage; people would be more
likely to have to put on the lights when they get up. CET would therefore flatten the winter
evening peak demand and raise the morning demand. The electricity boards considered after
the BST experiment that any savings made were marginal and impossible to isolate from other
variables, but the Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) estimated in 1989 that
52
Home Office, Cm 722 June 1989
Time for Change Setting clocks forward by one hour throughout the year A new review of the evidence.
Mayer Hillman PSI 1993 and Summertime; A consultation document Cm 722 Home Office June 1989
54
Time for Change Setting clocks forward by one hour throughout the year A new review of the evidence.
Mayer Hillman PSI 1993
53
22
Research Paper 96/4
permanent BST, by shifting peak demand from the evening to the morning, might obviate the
need for one power station55. This is because the evening peak demand determines the
number of power stations that need to be on line.
In 1989 the CEGB also considered however that the pattern of electricity usage was altering
in any case, and increasing the morning peak. With the added increase to the morning peak
caused by CET, this, rather than the evening peak, could determine the number of power
stations needed on stream to match consumer demand and could require substantial new
investment56. Today, with new generating trends, the above arguments may no longer hold,
although making any projections of this sort is very difficult. Off-peak low tariffs and
automatic switching are likely to further alter patterns of electricity usage, so an accurate
estimate of savings from CET is almost impossible to make.
There is major disagreement about possible lighting savings in the commercial sector from
CET. Hillman estimated "conservatively" electricity savings of 34% of lighting demand and
thus £200m per year from offices and public buildings. However, the 1989 Green Paper
considered that commercial lighting savings would be much less than those in the domestic
sector because as a general rule, people are at work during daylight hours and at home during
morning and evenings. Also, many parts of office buildings are away from windows and so
need artificial light in any case. In 1989 the Electricity Council estimated that savings would
be in the order of only one quarter of those in the domestic sector (around £6m at 1989 prices
and usage). Any energy savings to be made from CET would be negligible compared to the
nation's total energy bill: at the time of the 1989 Green Paper, savings would have been less
than 1%57.
C. Crim e
The Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) are in favour
of a switch to CET58 but it is very difficult to establish a causal link between daylight hours
and crime. The British Crime Survey conducted by the Home Office has suggested that
darkness facilitates some types of crime. Other crimes, however, are more associated with
daylight. Also, when daylight patterns change, crime patterns may change or evolve with
these. The review after the BST experiment could draw no firm conclusions.
55
Summertime; A consultation document Cm 722 Home Office June 1989
56
ibid
ibid
58
Daylight Extra...Now lobby notes for the present bill, undated
57
23
Research Paper 96/4
Crimes which take place more often in the dark, such as assault, criminal damage, vehicle
theft and burglary and household theft, might fall with lighter evenings. Several studies have
shown that artificial lighting reduces crime. Violent offences often take place in the dark (but
so do drinking and socialising, and many violent offences take place near pubs and clubs).
More daylight evenings would not necessarily be a good thing; crimes which are typically
associated with daylight, such as robbery, threats, theft from the person, and non-contact theft,
might be likely to rise. After a change to CET, burglary might increase in the evening if
people left their homes more often.59
Nevertheless it is often speculated that if it were darker in the mornings, it is unlikely that
crime would shift to that time, since few serious crimes are reported in the mornings;
'criminals it seems, find it very hard to drag themselves out of bed in the morning'60. Overall
it is difficult to predict any systematic reduction in crime from the adoption of CET.
However, as the 1989 Green Paper noted
'There is no doubt that fear of crime (as opposed to its incidence) is related to
darkness.'
Home Office Crime Surveys show that one in three adults feels "very unsafe" or "fairly
unsafe" walking alone after dark61. Nearly half of younger women and two-thirds of elderly
women feel unsafe. One in four secondary school children, and hardly any junior school
children, are allowed out by their parents after dark. Undoubtedly, for many pensioners
nightfall comes as a curfew. Age Concern favours switching to CET. According to Mayer
Hillman62;
'Many pensioners...and younger women, are effectively confined indoors after dark owing to
fears of mugging, assault and molestation'.
D. Leisure and touris m
Leisure time is increasing and work patterns are altering. The working week is reducing and
working hours are falling, paid holidays are increasing, and flexi- or shared working hours
are increasing. Many schools and employers are generally switching working hours to earlier
in the day, leaving time after work for leisure.
59
Summertime; A consultation document Cm 722 Home Office June 1989
'Time to wake up' New Scientist 23 October 1993, p.3
61
Daylight Extra...Now lobby notes for the present bill, undated
62
Time for Change Setting clocks forward by one hour throughout the year A new review of the evidence.
60
Mayer Hillman PSI 1993
24
Research Paper 96/4
The outdoor activity of many groups in the population is limited by the onset of dusk. People
spend around an hour longer per day watching television in the winter than in the summer.
However, over 21 million adults and 7 million children partake in sport at least once a month;
a substantial increase since the BST experiment63.
A switch to CET would give an average daily gain of 55 minutes of accessible daylight hours
in the evenings. Lighter evenings would give more time for gardening (the most common
outdoor leisure activity) and for outdoor sports. Half of the ten most popular adult sports
are daylight dependent. The Sports Council strongly supports the introduction of CET as do
the National Playing Fields Associations of England and Scotland and the Royal Horticultural
Society64. Some indoor leisure organisations are concerned about lighter evenings, but Bingo
operators and cinemas see advantages in pensioners and in children being able to travel to and
from these establishments in daylight65.
The British Tourist Authority has estimated that tourism now has a turnover of at least £36
billion, and that a change to CET would probably increase this by over £1 billion, also
extending the tourist season66. UK residents might well be encouraged to take more short day
trips and weekend breaks67.
E. Communications, trade, transport
CET would almost certainly increase communication with the rest of the EU, since more of
the working day would coincide. The time overlap with the Middle and Far East would be
increased, but the overlap of the working day with North America would decrease by an hour;
the New York opening of the market would move to 3 pm London time. In the 1989 survey,
workers in the London foreign exchange and money markets thought that CET would mean
London gaining business in Europe, the Middle East and Japan, and that this would outweigh
any loss of business in New York.
British residents make 8-9 times more business trips to Europe than to North America68.
Many continental offices open at 8 am their time so a British businessman has to make a very
early start to attend a morning meeting in Europe. Afternoon meetings usually mean they
have to stay overnight. European businessmen have the advantage of going in the opposite
63
ibid
Daylight Extra...Now lobby notes on present bill, undated
65
Summertime; A consultation document Cm 722 Home Office June 1989
66
Daylight Extra...Now lobby notes on present bill, undated
67
Summertime; A consultation document Cm 722 Home Office June 1989
68
Time for Change Setting clocks forward by one hour throughout the year A new review of the evidence.
Mayer Hillman PSI 1993
64
25
Research Paper 96/4
direction, and since this means they do not have to stay overnight, they save their firms
expense.
Ferry operators and many airlines presently have to allow for local time differences in their
scheduling, and favour a switch to CET, as do Eurotunnel and rail organisations.
Rescheduling would require a one-off cost, and would require considerable notice, but would
then result in permanent savings. Several airlines expressed concern in the 1989 survey that
landing slots might have to be renegotiated at airports, incurring considerable expense in the
dislocation of schedules, but they also noted that flights to and from Europe in the same day
would save the cost of air crews having to stay overnight, and extra air journeys would create
considerable extra revenue.
The Times has just published an article69 stating that charter airlines still fear that not enough
attention has been paid to initial problems involved in the switch, and the deputy managing
director of Britannia, Britain's largest charter carrier, has said that quotas may initially have
to be raised for night flights. The charter airlines are pressing for the onset of CET to be
delayed while new take-off and landing slots (which are presently in GMT) are negotiated.
In the same article a representative of the British Incoming Tour Operators Association noted
that 'although there might be some confusion at first the long-term advantages outweigh the
short-term problems'.
F. Agriculture
Both farmers and building workers work outdoors and start work earlier than the bulk of the
population. Suggestions that these groups should adjust their working day, to start work and
finish work an hour later in the day and avoid the dark mornings under CET have been
rejected in the past.
There is concern that CET would make things difficult for livestock farmers, and for arable
farmers, who would have to wait an hour later before starting work on crops in the growing
season. The National Farmer's Union was opposed to any change in 1989 and assumed (with
some evidence) that arable farmers would not be willing to adjust their working hours to start
and end their working day an hour later in the winter, as happens in some Scandinavian
countries. Livestock farmers would have to begin work at the same time, being governed by
their animals' body clocks, and would thus have to do an extra hour of work in darkness.
The NFU Scotland was strongly opposed to change in 198970 and still is (see section IV
above). However, one report in 1993 stated that the NFU's members were 'pretty agnostic'
69
'Airlines fight daylight Bill' Times 11 January 1996 p.37
Summertime; A consultation document Cm 722 Home Office June 1989 p.20
70
26
Research Paper 96/4
these days on daylight saving and the organisation was unlikely to campaign against CET71.
Mayer Hillman alleges that it is now only the one-third of dairy and livestock farmers who
are concerned, and that arable farmers are far less worried, seeing the extra hour of daylight
in the afternoon as a useful time for ploughing, sowing or harvesting. He also says that
increasing modernisation of farming, such as the use of well-lit milking parlours, negates
many of these arguments72.
The distributors and processors of food, as opposed to its producers, are mostly in favour of
CET. In the 1989 Green Paper organisations such as Action in Communities in Rural
England (ACRE) and the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH) supported CET; the
former considered that the farming community had overstated its case, since much modern
farming is carried out under cover73.
G. General well being and health
Some very general assertions are made concerning the well being of people under CET, and
these may be viewed by some as wishful thinking or pure speculation. Nevertheless, the
British Medical Association supports the adoption of CET.
In general much of the population do not take enough exercise. According to Mayer Hillman,
putting the clock forward an hour would increase opportunities for exposure to daylight,
encourage outdoor activity and 'clearly help to promote the fitness of both adults and children,
thereby leading to some improvement in health'. Other putative health effects would range
from increased vitamin D synthesis in the body to less physical and mental fatigue, and
improvements for some skin diseases. Darkness on rising may lead to sluggishness and
performance deficits, but this is discounted by Hillman as a temporary phenomenon74.
According to some reports 4-5% of the population can suffer Seasonal Affective Disorder
(SAD) during the winter months. It has been suggested that SAD may be related to
insufficient light stimulation reaching the hypothalamus in the brain, resulting in disrupted
sleep patterns, general symptoms of depression, and an indicative change in secretion levels
of the hormone melatonin by the pineal gland. This seems plausible because annual and
71
'Angry summer time' Nature 362 18 March 1993 p.192
Time for Change Setting clocks forward by one hour throughout the year A new review of the evidence.
Mayer Hillman PSI 1993
73
Summertime; A consultation document Cm 722 Home Office June 1989 p.20
74
Time for Change Setting clocks forward by one hour throughout the year A new review of the evidence.
Mayer Hillman PSI 1993 pp.13-15
72
27
Research Paper 96/4
daily light cycles control many functions such as reproduction in many organisms. Some
sufferers use 'light-boxes' to boost their exposure or are on anti-depressants, but one doctor
has commented that 'The only real cure is to emigrate.' The SAD Association can be
contacted at PO Box 989, London SW7 2PZ (01903 814942)75.
75
see for instance Daily Record 16 November 1995 'Woman Exclusive: Light of My Life - The real-life medical
nightmare that lies behind the winter blues ...'; Independent on Sunday 3 December 1995 'Health: Is this the
elixir of life?..' Press Association 1 January 1996 'Health: Sad Truth About These Dark Winter Days'
28
Research Paper 96/4
Further reading
The debate following the BST experiment- HC Deb 2 December 1970 cc1331-1422
Summer Time: A Consultation Document Cm 722 Home Office June 1989
The potential effects on road casualties of Double British Summer Time. J Broughton and
R J Sedman, Transport and Road Research Laboratory TRRL Research Report 228, 1989
Time for Change Setting clocks forward by one hour throughout the year. A new review of
the evidence. Mayer Hillman Policy Studies Institute 1993
Acronyms
BEC
Building Employer's Confederation
BST
according to context, either
British Standard Time (adopted during the experiment; GMT+1 throughout het
year) or
British Summer Time (GMT+1 during the summer)
CET
Central European Time (synonymous with SDST; GMT+1 in winter, GMT+2
in summer)
GMT
Greenwich Mean Time
PSI
Policy Studies Institute
RoSPA
Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
SAD
Seasonal Affective Disorder
SDST
Single Double Summer Time (synonymous with CET; GMT+1 in winter,
GMT+2 in summer)
TRRL
Transport and Road Research Laboratory
29