Patrick Nulty (Dublin West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I commend Deputy Broughan on bringing this legislation forward. The debate on this matter is both timely and important and I commend the Minister on being present for it.

The aim of the Brighter Evenings Bill is to require the Minister for Justice and Equality to prepare and publish a report on the costs and benefits of advancing the clocks by one hour to allow for brighter evenings and to bring Ireland into the central European time zone. Moving the clocks forward would make the winter evenings brighter for longer and numerous benefits - to which I propose to refer during my contribution - would flow from this. An attractive feature of this Bill is that it allows the Minister to advance the clocks by one hour for a three-year trial period. As Deputy Buttimer indicated, such a period would allow us to review how matters are progressing. It would also give us some breathing space if unforeseen difficulties arise. If, after the three-year trial period, the approach was deemed to have worked, we could then make it a permanent feature of our calendar.

When investigating this issue, I was impressed by both the range of research available and the passion and advocacy of those seeking change. The Lighter Later campaign group, based in Britain, has done much of the running on this issue and the debate on it is very much alive across the water. Among the arguments put forward by Lighter Later is the fact that moving the clocks forward by one hour would cut CO₂ pollution, save lives and prevent serious injuries on our roads and lower our electricity bills by maximising the amount of available daylight and reducing peak power demands. The latter is particularly important for those on lower incomes. Moving to central European time could lead to the creation of new jobs in leisure and tourism and, as Deputy Broughan stated, reduce crime and the fear thereof. The Lighter Later campaign argues that it would help to improve people's health and tackle obesity by giving them more time to exercise and play sport outside in the evening. The campaign also argues that it would improve the quality of life of the elderly. To use economic language, there are many positive externalities to the legislation which would really help to improve our society, economy and collective well-being.

A further interesting suggestion is that the brighter evenings could help reduce the effects of seasonal affective disorder, a condition by which some people are affected. I have been impressed also by the arguments of the group 10:10, which is also based in Britain. That group's campaign manager, Mr. Daniel Vockins, is on record as stating:

We commissioned research into a whole host of policy measures through which government could rapidly and painlessly reduce UK emissions. Reforming daylight savings hours came out top because of its substantial energy savings and a whole host of co-benefits. The extra hour of daylight in the evening saves energy because people end up using artificial light for a smaller portion of the day.

It is worth putting on the record that this debate is not new. During the Second World War, British clocks were set an extra hour forward throughout the year to increase workforce productivity and save energy. However, times went back to normal after the war. Between 1968 to 1971, the UK tried out GMT+1 all year round.

This is a very welcome debate and I hope the Minister will look on the Bill sympathetically and take up the opportunity for a review of this proposal and that we might have consensus in the House on this issue. I commend Deputy Tommy Broughan on his Bill and also the work of Deputies David Stanton and Eoghan Murphy and others on it.

See this speech in context