From the Guardian's Comment is Free blog, October 27, 2006:
Once again this weekend we in Britain will go through the annual
masochistic ritual of inflicting an extra hour of darkness on ourselves
in the evenings even though it is already dark enough for most of us.
This is a totally unnecessary thing to do. A number of authoritative
surveys, particularly one by the Policy Studies Institute
, show that road casualties could be reduced by over 2,000 a year
including a reduction in deaths of well over 100 if we had an extra
hour of daylight during the winter evenings. Not only that it would
boost tourism, increase leisure activities, conserve energy and
possibly even lead to a reduction in crime. It would also make us all
feel just a little bit better as we walk from work in daylight rather
than in darkness.
In other words it is a policy that this beleaguered government could
introduce at no cost that would have benefits in all directions. It
also has an opportunity at the moment since a private members bill is
going through the Lords advocating this but which will die the death
through lack of government support.
Why does the government refuse what must be one of the very few
free lunches in politics - producing widespread benefits at no
financial cost at all? The government's official position is: "We
consider that the present situation is a satisfactory compromise
between those who prefer lighter mornings and those who prefer lighter
evenings and we are not convinced that a change to our wintertime and
summertime arrangements would be in the best interests of the UK".
Maybe I had better translate that sentence: "We would love to do it as
all the evidence shows there would be big benefits but frankly we don't
want to do anything that might lose us votes in Scotland where it gets
darker for longer periods in the evenings than in the UK".
I sympathise with Scotland's position even though the research
actually shows that the further north you go the greater would be the
net reduction in accidents if we don't put the clocks back (ie an
increase in accidents during darker mornings would be more than offset
by fewer in the lighter evenings). No one likes long dark mornings per
se and if Scotland prefers lighter mornings to a net reduction in
accidents then that is the country's right. But it doesn't mean the
rest of the UK should follow suit. Scotland could easily opt for
flexitime (farmers and other early risers starting work an hour later)
or the whole country could vote for a different time zone from the rest
of the UK.Such a move could give Scotland a stronger sense of identity
and would be an interesting example of devolution in action. The bill
going through the Lords - which will die the death at the end of this
parliamentary session - makes provision for different outcomes in
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
What can be done about it? It is an all too typical example of how a
small focused lobby (farmers and other early-rising groups in Scotland)
can triumph over millions of ordinary voters who are difficult to
organise. Individual voices need to be heard. As a first step I have
used the admirable website PledgeBank to promise that I will write to
my MP as long as at least 50 others do the same. If you want to sign up
just click here - or use a related web site writetothem - to make your views known to your MP or other representative. Further information can be found here.
The more you think about it, the more bizarre the present situation
becomes. Imagine, for a moment, that the extra hour of daylight in
winter was the status quo and the government suddenly decided that we
were all to have an extra hour of darkness during winter evenings. It
would be a huge vote loser and the Sun and the Daily Mail would be
apoplectic. Let battle commence.