Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party) in the House of Commons on Friday, 20 January 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Daylight Saving Bill.


Daylight Saving Bill

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There is a danger that we will be distracted from the more important road safety issues if we imagine that the extra hour is a panacea. The measures that he mentions are probably far more important than the light at a particular hour, which is distracting far too many people when there are safety measures that need to be used. I am struck by the fact that road deaths fell by 300 between the winter of 2009 and the winter of 2010-11. Had the moves in the previous Parliament to have lighter evenings during the winter succeeded, a causal link would have been drawn between the lighter evenings and the drop in deaths. As we now know, that reduction in deaths happened anyway, with darker evenings. It is dangerous to make assumptions and links between lighter evenings and deaths on the roads, particularly as the rate of deaths decreased immediately after the study of the late 1960s and the '70s. Perhaps that study delayed the rate of the decrease. I move back to energy. The data used to support the changes seem to have a serious flaw. The campaign's main source of data is 24 studies on the effect of lighter evenings. Of those 24, only six were empirical studies and the rest were simulations. The paper examining them found that 15 studies concluded that there were energy savings. Of those 15, approximately two were empirical studies and 10 were simulations. The odd thing about the simulations is that they showed savings of 0.2% and 2%, and another study showed a saving of 0%. Surely a 0% saving could also be called a 0% loss. The information that we have from Indiana, Portugal and elsewhere shows that energy would be lost, not saved, if the change was made, and there would not be safety gains. As for tourism, my amendment suggesting that the studies be carried out in November would ensure that it could not benefit from another month of ““lighter later””. That would be a perfect compromise for many of us who need to find consensus, extend an olive branch and find middle ground. I fear that an all-or-nothing campaign would yield exactly nothing.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
538 c1016-7 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Devolution Northern Ireland Pupils Scotland Safety Wales Roads Sports Research Tourism Summertime
Legislation
Daylight Saving Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk