Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I gather some people think I am far too serious, so apparently it is a shock if one has a sense of humour in political life.

The arrangements we apply are set out in the Winter Time Order 2001 which gives effect to European Directive 2000/84/EC of 19 January 2001. As a result, all EU member states start summer time simultaneously which, in turn, means that time differences between member states remain constant throughout the year. The EU requirements are such that it would not be possible without the agreement between all 28 members states to implement the suggestion of Deputy Stanton because it would require that everyone agree simultaneously to the type of change he suggested.

Bringing Ireland into the Central European Time zone would mean that the SDST model would be adopted wherein the first year clocks would not go back in October. They would stay one hour ahead until March when they would then be put forward by an hour. After this first adjustment, clocks would continue to go back and forwards as usual but they would be an hour ahead of our current Greenwich Mean Time and GMT+1 system - that is, to GMT+1 in winter and GMT+2 in summer - and bring Ireland into line with Central European Time. By way of example, were Ireland's time zone in line with Central European Time in 2013, this would mean that in areas in the north west - for example, Sligo - sunrise would not occur on Christmas Day 2013 until 9:54 a.m. while on 21 June 2013 sunset would not have occurred until 11:12 p.m.

The Brighter Evenings Bill requires me, as Minister, to prepare a report on all the potential costs and benefits of advancing clocks by one hour to bring our time arrangements in line with Central European Time. In addition, the Minister for Justice and Equality must establish an independent group to oversee the preparation of the report proposed. Reflecting the many aspects of this matter, membership of the group must comprise stakeholders from various Departments and agencies as well as non-governmental organisations, including the Economic and Social Research Institute, the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, the Department of Health, the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, as well as the Road Safety Authority. The Bill further requires the Minister for Justice and Equality to publish the report within 12 months of the Bill being passed and that copies of the report be sent to the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Deputy Broughan's Bill is similar to the recent UK Private Members' Daylight Saving Bill which failed to complete its passage through the Westminster Parliament in early 2012. That Bill would have required the UK Government 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. If this analysis found that a clock change would benefit the UK, the Bill required that the Government initiate a trial clock change to determine the full implications. Deputies will be interested to note that in recognition of the key consideration of the close links between our respective states the UK authorities sought our views on the Bill at an early stage in its life. In this regard officials from my Department met the Bill's sponsor, Ms Rebecca Harris, MP, in February 2011. I will return to this key consideration at a later stage.

On 13 August 2012, some months after this UK Bill fell, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills - the UK equivalent of our Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation - published a report entitled Review of the Scope, Quality and Robustness of Available Evidence Regarding Putting Clocks Forward by One Hour, the Year round, in the UK, which was prepared on the Department's behalf by David Simmonds Consultancy. The consultants were requested to carry out a review of the scope, quality and robustness of available evidence that could be used to assess or monitor the potential effects of a policy to move the clock forward the year round in the United Kingdom. Such a change would effectively move the UK to "single/double summer time" or SDST, and would set clocks in the UK to the same time as those in the majority of western European countries, matching Central European Time. The work conducted was not a full cost-benefit analysis of the matter but simply a review of the available evidence. That said, the consultants reported that following the search of a range of sources, 118 references had been examined. These were studies based on the whole or parts of the UK as well as studies which looked at the impact or potential impact in other countries. In spite of the many sources examined the consultants reported, "Our overall conclusions are that we believe a formal ex antecost-benefit analysis of the single/double summer time proposal would be possible, but that more research is needed to inform it, particularly in relation to how people would respond to the change in terms of carrying out different activities at different times".

Section 3(1) of the Brighter Evenings Bill states that the Minister for Justice and Equality may make provision for advancing the clocks in Ireland by one hour for a three-year trial period under a daylight saving order. I note that the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill is more definitive in this regard when it states, "In addition under this Bill, the Minister must then advance the clocks by one hour for a three-year period, and then permanently if required." I am sure Deputy Broughan can clarify this apparent contradiction, as it is the wording of the Bill as opposed to the explanatory memorandum that would apply if the Bill was enacted. Deputy Broughan's Bill also provides that the Minister for Justice and Equality must monitor the effect of the daylight saving order throughout the three-year trial period and at the end of the trial period decide whether to abandon the experiment or to advance permanently our clocks by one hour.

Trial periods during which a country's time arrangements are altered are nothing new, as some Deputies have already indicated. For example, in the 1960s the UK Government decided to test the support for continuous summer time. A three-year experiment was introduced from 1968 to 1971 when summer time applied throughout the year. The experiment was debated in the Commons in December 1970 and by a vote of 366 to 81, the experiment was discontinued. Ireland followed suit and the Standard Time Act 1968 was introduced, which set time at GMT plus one hour throughout the year, and in 1971 the Standard Time (Amendment) Act became law. It is notable also that Portugal, which is in the same time zone as Ireland and the United Kingdom, converted to Central European Time in the periods 1966 to 1976 and again in 1992 to 1996.

It may be over 40 years since our 1968 to 1971 trial period ended but the issue of our time arrangements has been the subject of parliamentary questions, some of which were asked by Deputy Broughan, and recent debate. Against the background of the eventually unsuccessful passage of the Daylight Saving Bill through the UK Parliament Deputy David Stanton, who has a long-standing interest in the issue, raised the issue in a Topical Issue debate on daylight saving time on 26 October 2011. Subsequently, the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality discussed moving Ireland to Central European Time when it held a meeting on the socioeconomic and other implications of autumn and spring time adjustment arrangements on 30 November 2011. During the meeting the committee heard statements from and asked questions of representatives of the Irish Farming Association, the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. It is interesting to note, although not surprising, that many of the contributors to this discussion referenced the Daylight Saving Bill and various UK research papers.

Since becoming Minister for Justice and Equality it is has repeatedly been brought to my notice that there is no "correct" time zone for our country or indeed, any other state; this point has been made in parliamentary questions, Topical Issue debates and joint committee discussions. Today's debate has reinforced this point. There is no scientific or mathematical formula which determines the correct time zone for a state to adopt. Ireland, along with other countries, has made decisions to change its time zone arrangements at different times during the last century and such decisions, which are made taking many issues into account, are policy decisions and not formulaic in nature.

When considering which time zone we should select it is evident that we should take into consideration the implications of Ireland being, for example, one hour ahead of Northern Ireland, and Deputy Broughan's Bill acknowledges this. We must also consider what is happening in the UK as a whole, not least because we have the same time arrangements, it is our biggest trading partner and we share a Border with Northern Ireland. During the 42nd plenary of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in Cork in June 2011 it was stated that Britain does more business with Ireland than it does with Brazil, Russia, India and China combined.

I am all for making informed decisions regardless of the subject matter. I cannot accept the Brighter Evenings Bill in principle. I do not believe legislation is necessary to consider this matter and this issue is already kept under regular consideration as recent parliamentary questions and the Topical Issue debate demonstrate. If the aim of the Brighter Evenings Bill is to have an extra hour of daylight in the evening, rather than the mornings, this could be achieved without legislation by people getting up, going to work and finishing work an hour earlier, which I understand is common practice in Norway and Sweden. Whereas Deputy Broughan's Bill is interesting and acknowledges the wide diversity of views that the issue generates, the key issue lies in the many interlinked connections between us, Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole. Deputy Broughan's Bill, while acknowledging the Northern Ireland connection, is silent on the rest of the UK, so is he suggesting that we should consider conducting a three-year trial in which Ireland would set clocks one hour ahead of those in Northern Ireland or Great Britain or the UK as a whole in order to establish the implications of doing so?

Realistically, Ireland is not going to put itself in a different time zone to Northern Ireland or the UK. I agree with the thrust of Deputy Broughan's Bill, which proposes that full consideration be given to the broad range of areas that our time zone arrangements impact upon, including the agricultural community, industry, schools and individual people with work commitments. I note that the Bill proposes the establishment of an independent group to oversee the preparation of a report on all the potential costs and benefits of advancing clocks in Ireland by one hour. However, I also note from the joint committee's meeting of 30 November 2011 on the socioeconomic and other implications of autumn and spring time adjustment arrangements that Mr. Jim Curran, head of research at the Irish Small and Medium Enterprise association stated that the "main body of evidence on these arguments is centred in the UK, with little if any evidence on the impact a change would have on Ireland."

I acknowledge that the Deputy has not proposed that research be commissioned on the matter but there appears to be an absence of Irish-based research dealing with the issue. For the record I am of the view that the commissioning of research into this matter would be expensive and is unlikely to be persuasive either way, so it cannot be justified in current economic circumstances. While recognising his interest in the issue, I ask Deputy Broughan to adjourn this matter for further consideration rather than putting the Bill to the House for a vote. If he does so, I propose to write to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality to ask for further examination of the matter and to seek submissions from interested parties. I will also suggest that the committee engages with members of the Westminster Parliament, along with those in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Having completed that process, I will ask it to publish a report detailing the advantages and difficulties relating to any change in time and its conclusion on the matter.

Due to its workload, the committee might consider establishing a sub-committee to invite submissions and conduct hearings, which in turn could report to the main committee and thereafter to the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Minister responsible for time. I hope Deputy Broughan will accept this proposal, which would be welcomed by the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, not least because its Chairman, Deputy David Stanton, has contributed to the debate and has a personal interest in the subject.

I suggest to Deputy Broughan, in the context of the conclusion of what is an interesting debate on which there cannot be a definite view as to where we should go, to consider simply adjourning the debate on the Bill and to allow for the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality to take up the matter, but to give the committee the time it requires because of the burden under which it presently labours with the large amount of business that is before it.

See this speech in context