REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL ON THE APPLICATION OF SUMMER TIME IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
Date: 1996-04-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU policy, approximation of laws, impact study, report, summertime

COMMISSION  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  25.04.19% 
C'OM(%)  106 final 

96/0082 (COD) 

PROPOSAL  FOR  AN  EIGHTH  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND COUNCIL  DIRECTIVE 
ON  SUMMER-TIME  ARRANGEMENTS 

(presented  by  the  Commission) 

REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND THE 
COUNCIL  ON THE  APPLICATION  OF SUMMER  TIME  IN THE  EUROPEAN  UNION 

PROPOSAL  FOR AN EIGHTH  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND COUNCIL  DIRECTIVE 
ON SUMMER-TIME  ARRANGEMENTS 

"1 

PROPOSAL  FOR  AN  EIGHTH  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND COUNCIL  DIRECTIVE 
ON  SUMMER-TIME  ARRANGEMENTS 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

Most Member States  introduced  summer time in the seventies; others  introduced  it even 
earlier. 

Community  legislation (first  Council Directive of  1980') entered  into force  in  1981.  Its 
sole objective  was the gradual harmonization  of the dates on which summer  time began 
and  ended,  stemming  from  the  need  to remove  the obstacles  to the  free  movement  of 
goods  and services  which differing  national  summer-time  arrangements  would  create. 

2. 

This goal was partially achieved, in that the starting date was harmonized  throughout the 
Community,  but  successive  Directives  allowed  two finishing  dates:  the  last  Sunday  in 
September  for  the  continental  Member  States,  and  the  fourth  Sunday  in  October  for 
Ireland  and  the  United  Kingdom.  Full  harmonization  was  finally  achieved  in  the  7th 
Directive (94/21 /EC of 30 May  19942), which laid down that in  1996 and  1997 summer 
time  would  begin on  the  last  Sunday  in  March  and  end  on the  last  Sunday  in  October 
throughout  the Union. 

In accordance with its undertaking to Parliament and the Council when the 7th Directive 
was  adopted,  the Commission  has  launched  several  initiatives  to  look  at  the  matter  in 
greater depth.  A vast study was carried out in  1995 on how applying summer  time and 
changing  the  clocks  twice  a year  affects  energy  consumption,  public  health,  working 
conditions  and  lifestyles,  agriculture,  environmental  protection,  road  safety  and  the 
tourism  and leisure industries.  Bodies representing industries affected  by summer  time 
and associations for and against summer time were also consulted.  The Commission  has 
covered  the findings  of the study  and the observations of the various sectors  in a report 
to Parliament  and the Council.  The report  shows that the sectors consulted  all agree on 
the  need  to  aim  at  MI  1iarmtMorizatk*n  and  to  continue  to  apply  the  summer-time 
arrangements  introduced  by the 7fh  Directive for  f9%  and  1W7. 

OJ L 2@5, 7.S.Î980, p. 17. 
03 L 1*4, 3@ie.1994, p. 1. 

2i 

Contacts with national  experts have shown that the Member States intend to maintain the 
summer-time  arrangements.  Moreover,  virtually  all the other countries of Europe have 
introduced summer  time  and are applying  it in step with the European  Union. 

The  Commission  therefore  proposes  to  continue  working  towards  harmonization  and, 
accordingly,  to fix  the dates and times  for  the beginning and end of summer  time in the 
Union  after  1997.  It  also proposes  to establish  the dates for  a four-year  period  so that 
the  sectors  concerned,  especially  transport  and  communications,  can  draw  up  their 
timetables  over a sufficiently  long period. 

5. 

Since the measure  is aimed  at facilitating  the provision  of services  in the transport  and 
communications  sectors,  it is an area where jurisdiction  is shared. 

Directive  94/21/EC  of  30 May  1994 already  provided  for  harmonization  in  1996 and 
1997  as  proposed  in  this  draft.  All  Member  States  are  concerned.  At  a  meeting  of 
representatives of the Member States on  16 October  1995 all the Member States said they 
were  in  favour  of  maintaining  the harmonized  Community  arrangements. 

Pursuant to Article 4 of the seventh Directive, the Council must adopt by  1  January  1997 
the arrangements  to apply  from  1998 onwards. 

The proposed  Directive  is based  on  Article  100a,  as  were  the  fourth,  fifth,  sixth  and 
seventh  Directives. 

The  codecision  procedure  referred  to  in  Article  189b of  the  Treaty  must  therefore  be 
used. 

J 

EIGHTH  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND COUNCIL  DIRECTIVE  ON  SUMMER-TIME 
ARRANGEMENTS 

THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND THE COUNCIL  OF THE  EUROPEAN  UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article  100a 
thereof, 

Having regard  to the proposal  from  the Commission,1 

Having  regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee,2 

Acting  in accordance with the procedure  referred  to in Article  18% of the Treaty,3 

Whereas  the seventh  European  Parliament  and Council  Directive 94/21/EC of 30 May  1994 on 
summer-time  arrangements'  introduced a common date ami time througliout  the Community  for 
the beginning of  summer  time  in  1995,  1996 and  1997; whereas the seventh  Directive  retained 
two different dates for the end of summer time in 1995, one lor Member States other than Ireland 
and the United Kingdom and one for Ireland and the United Kingdom, but nonetheless introduced 
a common date and time for the end of summer  time in  1996 and  1997; 

Whereas, given that the Member  States apply summer-time arrangements, it is important  for the 
functioning  of the internal market that a common date and time for the beginning and end of the 
summer-time  period be fixed  throughout the Community; 

Whereas, with due regard for subsidiarity, a Community measure is necessary to ensure complete 
harmonization of the timetable with a view to facilitating  transport  and communications; 

Whereas me Member  States consider the end of October to be the most appropriate date for the 
end  of the summer-time  period; whereas mis date should therefore be  maintained; 

Wlïereas  Article 4  of  the  seventh  Directive  lays  down  that  the  I European  l*arliamenl  and  llic 
Council must adopt  hy  1  January  1997 the arrangements to apply  from  1998 onwards; 

Whereas, for geographical  reasons, common summer-lime arrangements should not apply to the 
overseas territories of the Member States; 

Whereas, for  reasons of timetabling,  particularly  in the transport  and communications  sectors, 
a timetable  of summer-time  arrangements  should foe set  for a sufficiently  long period;  whereas 
provisions ought therefore to be adopted for  1998,  1999, 3030 and 2601, 

I M ¥E APGFFED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

4 

mt  164, 30.6,1994, p. 1. 

4 

J  Ankle  1 

For the purposes of this Directive "summer-time period" shall mean the period of the year during 
which  clocks are put  forward  by 60 minutes compared  with  the  rest  of the year. 

Article 2 

In  each  Member  State  the  summer-time  period  for  1998,  1999,  2000 and  2001  shall  begin  at 
1 a.m.  Greenwich  Mean  Time on the last Sunday  in March,  i.e.: 

-  in  1998: on 29 March, 
-  in  1999: on 28 March, 
-  in 2000: on 26  March, 
-  in 2001:  on 25 March. 

Article 3 

In  each  Member  State  the  summer-time  period  for  1998,  1999,  2000  and  2001  shall  end  at 
1 a.m.  Greenwich  Mean  Time on the last  Sunday  in October,  i.e.: 

-  in  1998: on 25 October, 
-  in  1999: on 31 October, 
-  in 2000: on 29 October, 
-  in 2001: on 28 October. 

Article 4 

The  arrangements  to  apply  from  2002  onwards  shall  be  adopted  before  1 January  2001  on  a 
proposal  from  the Commission  presented before  1 January 2000. 

This  Directive does  not  apply  to the overseas  territories  of  the  Member  States. 

Article 5 

Article 6 

The Member  States shall adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions  necessary 
to comply with this Directive by 31 December  1997 at the latest.  They shall immediately  inform 
the Commission  thereof. 

When Member  States adopt these provisions, they shall contain a reference  to this  Directive and 
shall  be  accompanied  by  such  reference  at  the  time  of  their  official  publication.  The  detailed 
arrangements  for  such  reference  shall  be adopted  by  Member  States. 

This  Directive  is addressed  to the Member  States. 

Article 7 

Done at Brussels, 

For  the European  Parliament 

For the Council 

REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  THE 
COUNCIL  ON  THE  APPLICATION  OF SUMMER  TIME  IN THE  EUROPEAN  UNION 

€ 

Report  from  the Commission  to the European  Parliament and the Council  on the application 
of summer  time  in the European Union 

Introduction 

When the seventh  Directive 94/21 /EC  of  30 May  1994 on summer-time  arrangements' 
was  adopted,  the  Commission  gave  an  undertaking  to  Parliament  and  the  Council  to  have  a 
detailed  study  made  of  summer  time,  in  collaboration  with  those  groups  in  society  with  an 
interest  in  the  matter  and  with  experts  from  the  Member  States,  and  to  report  back  on  its 
findings. 

This  report  looks  at  the  economic  and  other  effects  of  summer  time  as  such  and  of 
changing the clocks twice a year.  It should also fuel  the discussion on the proposal  for an eighth 
directive,  which  should  be  adopted  by  1 January  1997  in  accordance  with  Article 4  of  the 
seventh  Directive. 

The report draws in particular on a vast study commissioned2  in the first  half of  1995 on 
the  effects  of  summer  time,  particularly  in  the  areas  of  energy  consumption,  public  health, 
working  conditions  and  lifestyles,  agriculture,  environmental  protection,  road  safety  and  the 
tourism  and  leisure  industries.  It  includes  observations  from  the sectors  concerned  and  from 
associations  for  and against  summer  time which were consulted  in writing and  invited  to attend 
a hearing  on 25  September  1995 in Brussels. 

I.  Background 

Summer  time  has  been  applied  in  the  European  Union  and  almost  all  other  European 
countries for  some twenty years now.  It was first  introduced in most Member States by national 
decision,  starting  with the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  in  1916, followed  by  Italy  in  1966 and 
France  in  1976.  Germany  and  Denmark  were  among  the  last  countries  to  introduce  summer 
time,  in  1980. 

By the end  of the  1970s, however,  summer  time  was beginning  and ending  at  different 
times in different  countries, causing many problems in the transport and communications sectors. 
After  a considerable  worsening  of the situation between  1976 and  1980, the Council  asked  the 
Commission  to come up with  measures  to harmonize  summer-time  arrangements.  On 22 July 
1980 the Council adopted the first  Directive3, setting common starting and ending dates for  1981 
and  1982.  However,  the  second  Council  Directive  of  10 June  19824  laid  down  a  common 
starting date for  summer  time (the last Sunday  in March) but two different  ending dates: the last 
Sunday  in September  for  the continental  Member  States and the end of October for  the  United 

1 OJ  L  164,  30.6.1994 
2 ADAS,  Consultant,  Guildford,  United  Kingdom,  1995 
3OJ  L 205, 7.8.1980,  p.  17 
4OJ  L  173,  19.6.1982, p.  16 

Kingdom and Ireland.  These arrangements were maintained  in successive Directives until  1995, 
when the seventh  Directive (the first  to be adopted jointly by  Parliament  and  the Council  under 
the codecision procedure) reintroduced fully harmonized summer-time arrangements for  1996 and 
1997.  The 7th Directive retained the last Sunday  in March as the starting date, butjook  the last 
Sunday  in October  as the ending date to apply  throughout  the Union. 

II.  Application of summer time in the Union 

1.  General 

We  need  to  distinguish  between  summer-time  arrangements  and  time  zones.  The 
European Union currently extends over three time zones: West European Time (Greenwich Mean 
Time:  GMT),  Central  European  Time  (GMT  +  1 hour)  and  East  European  Time  (GMT  +  2 
hours).  However,  the  time  in the  Member  States  does  not  necessarily  correspond  to  the time 
zone they are  located  in. 

N.B.  Member  States alone are responsible  for  setting  their  standard  time. 

The full  harmonization  of summer  time  introduced  by the 7th  Directive will  take  effect 

from  1996 onwards,  so we are as yet unable  to comment  on the effects  it might  have. 

2.  Economic  and other  effects 

The study  launched in the first half of  1995 set out to examine the situation on the basis 
of  national,  European  and  international  studies  of  duly  attested  scientific  value  carried  out  by 
private or public bodies.  The consultant in charge of the study was also asked to check the value 
and  reliability  of the collected  data and to update  it where necessary. 

To assess the economic and other advantages and disadvantages  of summer  time  and of 
changing  the  clock  twice  a year,  the study  looked  at three working  hypotheses,  taking  account 
of the current arrangements  in the Member  States, any drawbacks thereof and possible means of 
dealing  with  them. 

The three options were: 
Option  1: 

Option 2: 

Option 3: 

the status quo, with all Member  States continuing to maintain a summer 
time clock from  spring  to autumn, 
the status quo  for  the continental  countries but  with the UK and Ireland 
joining  the Central  European  Time zone (GMT  +  1 hour), 
the summer-time  clock arrangement  abandoned  in all EU countries, and 
the UK and Ireland joining  the Central  European  Time zone. 

8 

This report  sets out the main conclusions of the study  in each area considered,  together 

with the particular  positions  of the industries  and bodies  consulted,  where  appropriate. 

2.1.  Energy consumption 

The  main  reason  for  introducing  summer  time  at  the  end  of  the  1970s  was  to  reduce 

energy  consumption,  especially  electric  lighting  in the evening. 

The study shows that summer time influences energy consumption by varying the demand 
for  lighting  and  heating,  predominantly  in  the  early  morning  in  April  and  May.  The  small 
increase  in  morning  demand  when  the  clocks  first  go  forward  appears  to  be  significantly 
outweighed  by  the  net  reduction  in evening  consumption.  Moreover,  the heat  storage  capacity 
of  buildings  keeps  the  increase  in  consumption  small.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  domestic 
consumption  has  a  greater  impact  on  demand,  especially  for  lighting,  than  do  the  industrial, 
commercial  and public sectors.  This is because lights in offices,  shops and warehouses are often 
left  on  very  late,  or  even  all  night,  regardless  of  time  arrangements.  Furthermore,  there  are 
considerable energy savings in the domestic sector at the weekend owing to changes in behaviour: 
getting up  later,  outdoor  activities. 

The  anti-summertime  associations  argue  that  any  energy  saving  here  would  have  little 
financial  impact.  Lighting savings - estimated by ACHE5 to be between 27 and 36 kWh per year 
per household  - would  be matched  if  not exceeded  by  extra  demand  for  heating,  more  evening 
journeys, air conditioning  and the still considerable use of energy-intensive incandescent  lamps. 
The  Belgian  anti-summertime  associations  raise  similar  arguments  without  providing  figures. 
None of the  industries  consulted  commented  on this  matter. 

Unlike  ACHE,  the study  concludes  that  the daily  reduction  in domestic  demand  in the 
evenings during •summer time with Option  1  significantly  outweighs the small  increase in demand 
by  the  few  early  risers.  On  the other  hand,  lighting  demand  in the  industrial,  commercial  and 
public  sectors  is  hardly  affected,  as the  benefits  of  lighter  evenings  may  be  lost  in  the  darker 
mornings  in  the  month  just  after  the  switch  to,  and  the  month  just  before  the  switch  from, 
summer  time. 

We can therefore  conclude that  summer  time provides  some benefit  in terms  of  overall 
energy  consumption.  This  benefit  would  be  lost  if  Option  3  were  adopted.  For  the  same 
reasons, the adoption  of Option 2 by the  UK and Ireland would  lead to further  energy  saving in 
those countries. 

5  French  anti-summertime  association 

3 

2.2.  Public health 

The main health  argument  raised  most  frequently  against  summer  time  is disruption  of 
circadian  rhythms,  especially  when  the  clocks  are  changed,  interrupting  some  people's  sleep 
patterns  and  even  causing  mood  changes.  It  would  appear  also  that  more  problems  arise  in 
spring  than  in  autumn.  However,  most  studies  agree  that  these  effects  are  very  temporary, 
lasting no more  than three weeks.  Moreover,  they may even be due to other  factors  not  really 
linked  to summer  time.  For  instance,  difficulties  in getting  to sleep could  be explained  by  the 
rapid  increase in daylight  hours rather than changes in the circadian cycle.  Lastly, experts seem 
to agree that  summer  time  has  no serious  consequences  for  health.  Indeed,  they  point  out  that 
the  lighter  evenings  encourage  physical  and  sports activities,  which  benefit  people  of all ages. 

The Belgian and French anti-summertime  associations stress the difficulties  experienced 
in particular by young children, the elderly and the sick, claiming that putting the clocks  forward 
can  initially  cause  loss  of  sleep,  and  even  a  reduction  in  intellectual  capacity,  while  during 
summer  time itself there may be difficulties  in sleeping owing to warmer evenings.  ACHE even 
refers  to higher  consumption  of medicinal  products  when the clocks change,  though  no medical 
studies  have yet attributed  this  phenomenon  solely  to the time  change and  other  factors  may be 
involved. 

As all these adverse effects  are limited,  very temporary  and reversible after  two or three 
weeks, we can conclude that summer  time as such and the accompanying  time changes have no 
lasting  or  serious  consequences  for  health. 

2.3.  Working conditions 

The  study  looked  in detail  at  the  impact  of  summer  time  on  the  construction  industry, 
trade, communications  and transport.  The working day in these sectors  is governed  by fixed  or 
variable  timetables,  and  activities  may  be  indoors  or  outdoors.  This  provides  a  range  of 
situations  broad  enough  to  guarantee  a  representative  survey.  Further  data  were  gathered  by 
reference  to existing  literature  and  from  questionnaires  sent  to the  national  Ministries  and  to a 
number  of companies  and professional  federations. 

The  time  at  which  the  sun  rises  and  sets  has a  particular  bearing  on  the  construction 
industry,  where  most  activities  have  to be carried  out  in daylight  and  above  a certain  ambient 
temperature.  However, most of the industry seems willing to maintain summer time, as working 
hours can be geared towards the lighter evenings and thus offset  the darker mornings  (especially 
in the first weeks after  the clocks go forward) and the midday heat of the summer.  A distinction 

1o 

should be drawn, however, between the opinion expressed on the continent in favour  of the status 
quo (Option  1) and the situation  in the United Kingdom, where a good proportion of the industry 
would  not  oppose  retaining  summer  time  and  moving  onto  Central  European  Time  (Option 2). 
The  anti-summertime  associations  point  out  the disadvantages  of  double  summer  time  in some 
continental  countries,  where  rest  periods  would  be set  back  and  work  would  begin  again when 
the sun  is at  its highest  (and  the day at  its hottest). 

Generally speaking, the trade and communications sectors encounter no difficulties  and 
have  expressed  no opinion  for  or  against  summer  time  as such.  However,  all  the  sectors, and 
especially  transport,  stress  the  importance  of  harmonized  dates  for  the  beginning  and  end  of 
summer  time,  not  least  to  facilitate  the  timetabling  of  railway  services  (European  timetable 
Conference)  and aircraft  slotting  (I AT A6 and ACE7).  On the other hand,  the representatives of 
the  industries  concerned  generally  favoured  standardizing  the  time  as  this  would  facilitate 
communications  and  travel  within  the  Union.  For  instance,  the organizations  representing  the 
airlines  (IATA and  ACE),  as well  as railway  companies  such as  European  Passengers  Service, 
which serves London, Paris and Brussels on the Eurostar line, stressed the problems encountered 
by travellers from  the United Kingdom,  who to get to an early morning meeting on the continent 
had  to leave the day  before,  thus  incurring  extra expenses,  while the same journey  in the other 
direction  is easily  completed  the same day. 

With  the exception  of agriculture  (see section  2.5),  the other  sectors  did  not  report  any 

major  difficulties  caused  in this area by summer  time. 

The  representatives  of the construction  industry  in the continental  countries  all  seem to 
favour  maintaining  the status quo (Option  1); the summer  time arrangements  make it possible to 
work longer or to pursue outdoor activities after  work.  The only slight problem comes from  the 
darker  mornings  in  the  weeks  after  the  clocks  go  forward.  Representatives  of  the  UK 
construction  industry  have  mixed  feelings  about  Option 2,  even though  new  working  practices 
allow more  flexibility.  Lastly,  organizations  in the trade, banking  and communications  sectors 
would  prefer  an  option  with  no  time  difference,  even  if  they  have  no  particular  feelings  on 
summer  time as such.  These organizations would therefore  prefer  Options  2 or 3 on account of 
the benefits  that  would  stem  from  harmonization  of clock  times  throughout  the  Union. 

2.4.  Lifestyles and leisure 

Major  socio-cultural  differences  are  apparent  here  both  within  and  between  Member 
States.  Lifestyles  and  leisure  activities  are  determined  partly  by  climate  and  by  seasonal 
variations  in the number  of daylight  hours.  People in the north of Europe have less opportunity 
than  those  in the south  for  outdoor  recreation  on weekdays  in winter,  but  more  in summer. 

IATA:  International  Air Transport  Association 
ACE:  Association  of Airline Companies  of the EEC 

n  i 

However, with summer daytime temperatures higher in the south, the people there tend to pursue 
leisure activities after  sundown, when it is cooler.  So shifting  an hour of daylight from  morning 
to evening  in the summer  has a direct  impact  on recreational  opportunities. 

Public opinion surveys show that the lighter evenings provided by summer time are much 
appreciated,  especially  in  the  south,  where  night  falls  earlier.  The  extra  daylight  encourages 
people who like to be home before  nightfall  (especially children,  women  and  the elderly)  to get 
out  more  and  pursue  outdoor  activities.  The  study  surveys  showed  increased  participation  in 
outdoor  sports  and  other  activities  throughout  the  Union. 

The  anti-summertime  associations  refer  to certain  adverse  effects  on  leisure  activities. 
ACHE  says  the arrangements  discourage  recreation  in the morning,  the  early  afternoon,  when 
it is hot,  in the evening  where activities are subject  to fixed  opening  times,  and,  lastly,  at  night 
for  such  events  as  firework  displays  and  son  et lumière.  They  also  claim  that  individuals  in 
whom  summer  time  causes  loss  of sleep are penalized by the need  to catch  up on their  sleep at 
the weekend when they could otherwise be out and about.  Of course, this is opinion rather than 
the  result  of  careful  study.  Other  associations,  including  the  Belgians  (Flemish  and  French-
speaking sections) stress that farmers  use the extra daylight  in the summer to continue harvesting 
late  into  the evening.  So unlike  the  rest  of  the population  they  find  their  leisure  opportunities 
curtailed  rather  than expanded,  to the extent  that they decide to use  the extra daylight  hour  for 
work. 

The study  concludes that  as far  as continental  Europe is concerned,  Option  1 (retaining 
the status quo) would bring more benefits  than Option 3 (abandoning  the system), which would 
result  in the  loss of about  a quarter  of  the number  of evening  hours  of daylight  from  March  to 
October,  thereby  decreasing  the  opportunity  for  daytime  leisure  activities.  For  the  UK  and 
Ireland Option  2 would provide an extra hour of evening daylight throughout the year.  Option 3 
would give  those two countries  more  leisure opportunities than at  present,  but  only for  the  five 
months  from  November  to March. 

2.5.  Agriculture 

A lot of agricultural activity is dictated, inter alia, by the seasons and by the time of day. 
For instance, the sun determines the treatment  and harvesting of crops owing to its effects  on the 
temperature  and  humidity  of  air  and  soil.  The  time  also  impacts  on  stockbreeding  and  dairy 
farming,  though other  activities are not time-critical. 

European agriculture has changed greatly over the last thirty  years.  Mechanization  has 
reduced the workforce  and intensive farming  has increased agricultural  and dairy yields.  Better 
work distribution and the resulting  improvement  in productivity have changed the way work is 

'lc 

organized  and the time taken to accomplish it.  Nonetheless, the crop workload peaks from  July 
to October,  i.e.  during  the summer-time  period  (harvesting  in summer  and  sowing  in autumn), 
so any time change  which  lengthens or shortens  the working  day will  affect  the working  habits 
of agricultural  labourers. 

At the hearing the representative of COPA (Committee  of Agricultural  Organizations in 
the EEC) reported  a number of concerns regarding summer time, including the possible spoiling 
of vegetables  if work  is not carried  out at the right time of day and the consequences  for  cattle, 
which  need  to be fed  and milked  at  regular times. 

The study concludes that the application of summer  time has no negative effect  on most 
agricultural activity.  Most operations which depend on solar time are carried out in summer,  i.e. 
when days are longest  (longer  mornings  in the south,  longer  evenings  in the north).  However, 
it  is very  hard  to determine  the  impact  of summer  time  as such on the working  conditions  and 
leisure activities of the agricultural population.  Agricultural  work, and especially harvesting, is 
dictated  by the  ripening  of crops  and by the weather,  which means  that  at harvest  time  farmers 
have  to work  at  any  time  of day,  including  nights  and  weekends,  whatever  time  arrangements 
are  in  force. 

In  conclusion,  the  study  indicates  that  relatively  few  agricultural  activities  on  the 
continent  would  be  affected  if  summer  time  were  abandoned  (Option  3),  though  the  leisure 
opportunities of agricultural workers, and of workers in other sectors such as construction, would 
be  curtailed  by the  loss  of  an hour of daylight  in the evenings.  Thus  the continental  countries 
would prefer  Option  1.  In the UK and Ireland Option  3 could cause some problems  in the early 
morning,  while  Option  2 would  require  some change to meet  the  requirements  of  time-critical 
operations.  However,  the negative impact of adopting either of these options is small and would 
be offset  by  other  advantages. 

2.6.  Environmental protection 

While  summer  time  has  no direct  impact  on the environment,  we still  need  to examine 

its  indirect  impact. 

The study examined  the potential  impact on ozone formation  and road  vehicle emissions. 

Ozone  formation  depends  on  a  number  of  factors,  including  weather  conditions  and 
population density in a given area, i.e. urban or rural.  Moreover, ozone concentration at a given 
place and time will depend,  inter alia, on the horizontal  and vertical  travel of the ozone, spatial 
variations  in  the  intensity  of  solar  radiation  and  the  force  of  decomposition  processes. 
Concentrations  thus vary widely in space and time, and the values for  a city like Paris cannot be 
extrapolated  to other  regions of France or Europe.  In view of the complex chemistry  involved, 
the study concludes that too many questions are still unanswered and that, ultimately,  significant 

13 

reductions  in  ozone  formation  are  far  more  likely  to  be  achieved  by  reducing  emissions  of 
primary  pollutants  at source than through  clock  arrangements. 

Two things need to be considered with regard to the environmental  impact of cars during 
summer  time: catalytic converters  and the increase in road traffic  as more people travel to their 
leisure activities.  With regard to catalytic converters, ambient air temperature plays an important 
role when the engine is first  started  as it affects  the length of time needed for the engine and the 
converter  to  reach  peak  performance.  So during  summer  time,  when  the  time  change  means 
mornings  are colder,  it takes the converter  longer to warm up, with the consequences  described 
above.  If  we  then  add  up  all  early  morning  journeys,  a  time  difference  of  one  hour  in  early 
April  can  result  in  increased  pollutant  emissions,  though  this  problem  should  be  significantly 
reduced  once the new generation  of catalytic converters  is  introduced. 

It might  also be argued  that  the extra summer-time daylight  can affect  the organization 
of leisure activities, causing, for example, a increase in car journeys at the end of the  afternoon, 
and thus an  increase  in emissions.  A study by the Université  Libre de Bruxelles  on the  effects 
of  the  time  change  on  energy  consumption  and  photo-oxidizing  vehicle  pollution  in  Belgium 
appears  to  show  certain  increases  which  vary  considerably  from  year  to  year.  In  fact,  these 
variations suggest that weather conditions have a bigger impact than summer time on the increase 
in traffic  at certain times of the day (caused by journeys whose purposes and impact  are looked 
at  in sections 2.2, 2.4  and 2.8). 

2.7.  Road safety 

A statistical  model  was created  for the study to examine the effects  of summer  time on 

the number  of  road accidents  in the light of the three options. 

The  experimental  introduction  of  "British  Standard  Time"  <GMT  +  I)  in  the  United 
Kingdom  between  1968 and  1971 showed  the potential  for  reducing  road  accidents  by  shifting 
daylight (the adoption of summer  time all year round gave an extra hour of evening  light at the 
cost  of  an  hour  of  morning  light).  The  number  of  morning  accidents  rose,  but  the  overall 
number  of accidents fell.  The fact  is that more accidents occur  in the dark than in the daytime, 
so by  shifting  daylight  to  the  evening,  when  accidents  are more  common,  the  overall  number 
goes down.  On the other  hand, some people object that secondary factors  such as the presence 
of  ice  on  the  roads  during  the  morning  rush  hour  and  the  extra  traffic  generated  by  the  light 
evenings could  offset  the benefits  of the time change.  The study  shows such effects  to have no 
significant  impact,  the  British  experiment  having  resulted  in  an  overall  reduction  in  accident 
numbers. 

For the purposes of the study, a  statistical  model  was developed  to  simulate the  effects 
of adjusting  the clock in other EU countries on the basis of the results Of the British experiment. 
The model used figures showing the number of accidents in each of the countries which provided 
information,  plus  the  findings  of  studies  of  the  day/night  ratio  of  accidents.  It  showed  that 
Option  3 (abandonment  of summer  time) would have no significant  effect  on the number of 

4'\f 

accidents in Denmark,  Norway and Spain, the only countries which provided full  information  on 
numbers  and times  of accidents.  For  the  United  Kingdom  it  showed  that  Option  2 would  lead 
to 0.75%  fewer  people being  injured  and  1.73%  fewer  being  seriously  injured  or  killed,  while 
Option  3 would  achieve  around  hall  that  level  of  casually  reduction. 

2.8.  Tourism and leisure industries 

In  view  of  the  lack  of  specific  study  in  this  area  a  survey  was  conducted  in  all  the 

Member  States, though with a poor  rate of response. 

Lighter  evenings  of  course  encourage  more  outdoor  sport.  The  French  Ministry  of 
Physical  Education  and  Sport  reports  increased  sports  activity  after  the  clocks  go  forward  in 
spring.  This  opinion  is shared  by  a number  of  British  sports  bodies,  which  feel  an extra  hour 
of daylight could only benefit outdoor sport.  Summer time benefits other outdoor activities, too. 

Cultural  tourism  (visits  to  galleries,  museums,  etc.)  does  not  depend  on daylight,  and 
these  institutions  generally  apply  a  fixed  timetable  all  year  round.  However,  certain  historic 
monuments,  theme parks and gardens open to the public generally close at sundown,  so an extra 
hour  of  daylight  ought  to  be  of  benefit  to  them.  On  the  other  hand,  theatres,  cinemas  and 
libraries  lose business  over  the summer. 

Lastly, the lighter evenings appear to encourage the elderly  to get out and about,  as they 

are able to get  back  home  before  dark.  The same applies  for  children  and  adolescents. 

The  study  concludes  that  extra  daylight  in  the  evenings  benefits  tourism  and  outdoor 
activities.  The continental tourism  and leisure industries benefit  from  the status quo (Option  1) 
and  would  lose  out  if  summer  time  were  abandoned  (Option  3).  The  Irish  and  UK  industries 
overwhelmingly  favour  Option 2 for  the same reasons. 

2.9.  Economic analysis 

As well  as analysing  the advantages  and disadvantages of summer  time, the study  tried 
to  assess  its  economic  impact  on  the  industries  under  consideration  and  to  highlight  the 
advantages  of one or  other  option  for  all  the countries.  Of course,  this  is necessarily  based  on 
a  number  of hypotheses,  and  the study's  figures  are purely  indicative. 

A number of areas derive overall benefit  from the summer-time arrangements, principally 

leisure  and  tourism  and  the  related  industries,  public  health  and  road  safety.  For  agriculture, 

is 

energy  and  the environment,  however,  the advantages  and  disadvantages  either  balance out  or 
are not very  significant. 

In the area  of leisure  activity,  the study  calculated  the  number  of  extra  daylight  hours 
offered  by each option and tried  to put a figure  on the financial  benefit  this would bring.  Thus 
for Ireland and the United Kingdom Option 2 would provide the equivalent of three extra weeks 
of  daytime  leisure  compared  with  Option  1.  Working  on  the  basis  of  ECU  1 per  hour  per 
household,  this  represents  an  annual  economic  gain  of  ECU  6 716  million  in  the  UK  and 
ECU  332 million  for  Ireland.  Option  3 would bring a lesser benefit  of ECU  1 655 million  for 
the UK and ECU  107 million for Ireland.  Option 3 would be a worse option for the continental 
countries than Option 2.  For instance, Paris would lose 214 daylight hours a year (after 5 p.m.), 
representing  an  economic  loss  of  ECU  4 817  million.  The  same  calculation  indicates  that 
Option  3 would  mean  a loss of  ECU  21 033 million  for  the  13 continental  countries. 

Option 2  would  bring  the  tourism  and  leisure  industries  in  Ireland  and  the  UK 
substantial benefits,  estimated  in the Hillman report  at ECU  1  200 million per year,  i.e.  around 
4%  of  their  current  revenue.  On  the  other  hand,  Option  3  would  bring  annual  losses  of 
ECU  6 240 million  for  these  industries  in the thirteen  continental  countries. 

The  standardization  of  time  would  benefit  travellers.  The  countries  of  Central  and 
Western  Europe  already  have  standardized  time  and  would  derive  no  additional  benefit  from 
Options 2  or  3.  The main  beneficiaries  would  be the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland,  as  either 
option would favour journeys to and trade with the continent.  The study estimated the resulting 
financial  gain at anything from  zero for people making no journeys, to several hundred ecus for 
a person travelling  regularly  in Europe, to tens of millions of ecus for  large companies.  It also 
calculated  that  standardization  could  bring  financial  gain  of  ECU  626 million  for  the  UK  and 
Ireland  and ECU  308 million tor the other  Member States,  i.e. a total gain of ECU  934 million 
for  the  15 EU States. 

For public health  the study calculated  that the increased opportunity  to pursue physical 
activities and sport  under Option  2 would produce a 5 % reduction  in the risk  of cardio-vascular 
disease and  allow  savings  of  ECU  335 million  in the  UK, while Option  3 would  allow  savings 
of only  1 %.  The same calculation showed that for the  13 continental countries Option  3 would 
increase health costs by an estimated  ECU  1 410 mil ion. 

For  road  safety  the  study  estimated  that  the  cost  of  accidents  in  the  UK  would  be 
reduced by ECU  180 million under Option 2 and by ECU  100 miliion under Option  3.  Lack of 
comparable statistics meant no precise figures could be given for the financial impact  in the other 
Member  States,  mough Option  3 would presumably  entail  increased  accident-related  costs. 

Conckiskaa 

All  tne  study's  findings  and  the  observations  made  to  ttie  Commission  indicate  an 
overwhelming  preference  for  mainta;ining  a summer-time  regàrne in  the  Earapean  Utnon  and 
nei^teoariag countries-

16 

The  study  shows  that  putting  the  clocks  forward  and  back  causes  no  great  problems, 

though some  people may  experience certain  discomforts. 

For continental  Europe Option  I, the status quo, is a satisfactory  arrangement,  preserving 
the substantial  economic benefits  summer  lime brings to leisure activities, tourism,'public health 
and  road  safety.  By comparison,  Option  3 would  bring economic  drawbacks  in all  these areas. 

The  study  shows  that  Ireland  and  the  United  Kingdom  would  benefit  greatly  by 
harmonizing their clocks with the  13 other Member States.  They would enjoy  the same  benefits 
those countries  already enjoy,  as described  above.  At the same time this standardization  would 
also benefit  the  13 continental  Member  States. 

All  the sectors consulted,  notably  at the hearing  organized  by the Commission,  agreed 
on the need for  full harmonization of dates and times for  the beginning and end of summer  time 
throughout  the  Union. 
tourism  and 
communications  sectors.  It is important therefore  that we maintain harmonization and continue 
to  apply  the summer-time  timetable introduced by the 7th  Directive,  viz.  a single starting  date 
in March and a single ending date in October throughout the EU. 

This  is  particularly 

in  the  transport, 

important 

Lastly,  it should  be  remembered  that  the Commission's  task  as  regards  time  is  aimed 
essentially at harmonizing the summer-time timetable, provided the Member States agree to keep 
on apply wig the system.  Any decision to alter other time arrangeraient» in the Member States  falls 
to then» alone. 

ISSN  0254-1475 

COM(96) 106 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

12  07 

Catalogue number  : CB-CO-96-114-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-01622-5 

Office  for Official Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

U