The University of California made a study of the 2-month forward switch to daylight saving in Victoria Australia prior to the 2000 Olympics. The findings released in January this year, found that, due to the winter daylight conditions, energy savings were actually in the negative – ‘energy consumption increased rather than decreased and … the within-day usage pattern changed substantially, leading to a high morning peak load.'

A study by the California Energy Commission (Kandel) this year also showed that any further extensions to daylight saving in the US are likely to merely shift electricity use to off-peak hours rather than create a significant drop in power usage. According to the study, electricity use could decline 0.5 percent, 'but the savings could just as well be zero.’ The study found that the only significant energy savings (up to 1 per cent per day) occur in the 3 summer months, when the days are at their longest.

Marian, Brisbane, Australia

I am surprised that Anatole Kaletski and it seems much of the population find it so difficult to stir their bones in the morning and get up earlier without changing the clocks to read a false time.

John Eldred, Luckington, Wiltshire

Bill Dryden is quite right - Britain stayed on BST from Feb 68 to Oct 71. The experiment failed - road accident deaths, which had been falling for some years, increased. RoSPA have no basis whatsoever to claim 100+ road fatalities would be saved.

Do those who support the idea of sticking to BST think the daylight will magically increase ? The only question is if we have dark early mornings or late afternoons. I say stick with what we have now.

Phil, Surrey,

Emily from newmarket sounds like the child catcher in chitty chitty bang bang, sorry didn't mean to offend that fantastic childrens film.

John Lewis, Upminster, UK

Emily, I roared with laughter when I read your blog. You are SO right! Sadly, in truth, it's not all that funny, but so nice to find a like-minded individual. You've made my day. Back to the daylight saving. What about another trial year? Britain is perhaps less smoggy than in the Sixties, maybe they should give it another go? I am currently in New Zealand where they have finally decided to extend the daylight saving season and its a big improvement for me. (kids in NZ aren't THAT much better behaved - but they are wonderful in Rural France - planning to retire there as long as it hasn't been colonized by lardy noisy brats looking for McDonalds)

Dawn, Auckland, New Zealan

Not sure your readers are getting the point. Save Energy, save lives, help business, lighter evenings etc It all sounds to good to be true but one simple change and we get all these benefits And strangely it is true. The bill you mention agian was voted against by Scottish MPs even though it only covered England and Wales. Strange.

Brian Culver, Chatham, UK

Anatole's conclusions are plain common sense - something commentators such as Jonathan and Mark from London seem to be astonshingly short of - to use a Scottish phrase - numpties.

Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK

This article is usually written by Victor Keegan and appears in the Observer on the Sunday the clocks go back. It is nonsense when he writes it, too. Anyone would think we could increase the total amount of daylight we enjoy by shifting the clocks around, when all that is to be decided is if we have dark early mornings or dark late afternoons.

As has been pointed out, the experiment has been tried before, when the UK stayed on BST from February 1968 until October 1971. It failed then and would fail now. RoSPA, as usual, don't know what they are talking about : the net result was more, not fewer, road accidents as the morning rush hour is busier, with workers and schoolchildren travelling at the same time, more urgent (we are more likely to rush to work than rush home) and people are less awake at that time of day. It was more, not less, dangerous; road fatalities, which had been falling for some years, actually rose again 68-71.

Mark, stuart, jonathan - excellent comments

Phil, Surrey,

Well clearly Brits have no problem at all with working abnormal hours. I noticed the column and commented on it about 1am UK time, thinking gentlemen in England would be now abed. At the time there were 5 comments extant, the latest two being the exchange I was responding to. More than a dozen comments were posted ahead of mine, mostly from the UK or Western Europe. Seems like it ain't broke.

Graduate, Hong Kong, China

In Canada we have FIVE time zones, and it's no big deal.
what's your problem?

Peter, Montreal, Canada

The busines pros and cons are one thing, but some of us have lives outside work as well as whilst at work.

For most of the business discussions referred to, it's completely immaterial whether it's light or dark, but after work the daylight is useful in our personal lives, for those of us who like the outdoors at least. Conversely, the dark is pretty useful to those who are more inclined towards criminal or anti-social behaviour.

I enjoyed the article and can only imagine that many of those who didn't, are missing out on a lot of reality.

Chris, Shrewsbury, UK

Yes, it's light until after 6pm in southern Spain even in January, but in Granada it's still dark at 9am! As someone has already said, changing the clocks forward or back makes no difference to the number of hours of daylight,. In December and January an 'extra' hour's daylight, whether in the morning or evening, makes very little difference to the gloom consequent on our northerly latitude and westerly longitude

Ann, Plymouth,

I live in Shetland and I hated the clock going back last week. Suddenly, instant darkness when closing my shop, instead a nice hour walking the dog on the beach. Not all Scots are averse to the proposition!

Andrew Jennings, Scalloway, Shetland

NZ has the same system of daylight saving and it is accepted by the general population with the minority of opponents being people from the farming industry, principally, dairy farmers.
I have not seen any statistics re an increased road accident toll,
Daylight saving was adopted in NZ during WWII to aid increased productivity. After the war NZ retained a permant year round 30 minutes daylight saving (few people are aware of this)

janne, Rangiora, NZ

Of course, Scotland is further west than England.

The writer (who must get good lunch breaks!) makes much of the benefits of synchronising with Europe, but does not mention the costs of not synchronising with Scotland.

As commented on "The Minute Blog", a natural conservatism is surely a cause of resistance, so a more incremental approach would be better. Why not bring them forwards a month earlier in the spring?

Tim Jones, Maidenhead,

The US gravitational pull has always been greater than that of Europe. It is that special relationship again. Now that the Scots make their own laws they could have their own time zone.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Please can Anatole Kaletsky tell me which British businesses have two hour lunch breaks so I know who to address my CV to.

Adam, london,

Spot on, Mr. Kaletsky. Only in the UK would anyone allow such a small Scottish tail to wag such a large British dog. And do the Norwegians, Swedes and Finns all put their clocks back? Not as far as I am aware.

Michael Margrett, Ardingly, West Sussex

I live in Scotland, in an urban area where many children of all ages walk to and from school. The result of putting the clocks back an hour is that the children are walking in daylight *both ways*. Seems like a good plan to me.

Maggie, Edinburgh, Scotland

Many schools (including the one my sons attended) open from 0830 till 1430, meaning that with GMT both journeys take place in daylight. The problems with dark mornings are always understated by Mr Kaletsky and others, especially when compounded with frost and fog, as they often are in winter.
The point about not compromising our time difference with the Americas is important - this gives London an important edge over continental business centres.
Also, I don't notice countries in mainland Europe (on CET, their 'natural' time) clamouring to go onto EET (GMT+2)!
France may be on CET, but most of it is east of the Greenwich meridian; nearly all of Britain is to the west of it and to adopt what is essentially Berlin time is absurd.
Perhaps businesses should re-think their hours, if appropriate.

Richard, East Grinstead ,

The big difference with Portugal is that whilst in London sunset is at around 20.20 in the summer solstice, in Lisbon it is around 21.20, one hour later. That means that, in summer, if they were on CET, dust would be, more or less, at 23.00, which is crazy. But this is not the case in UK.

Avocado, London,

The trouble is its no good using logic to argue this most obvious of changes. I would of thought that the green lobby would be howling for this, co2 reduced by an amount equal to 50% of aircraft output. Where is H&S exec? Where is the CBI? Theres no point in leaving it up to the government they would only make a u turn later. Scotland doesnt want anything to do with England anyway, let them decide their own time zone so come on lets do it.

mike gee, bournemouth, uk

So a lot of you (including Kaletsky) are saying get rid of Greenwich Mean Time? No National Pride? Goodbye Britain, hello EU.

aj, London,

If you really want to get up in the dark, simply get up an hour earlier rather than fiddling with everyone's clocks - its not rocket science.

As to compatibility with 'Europe' I suggest you look at an Atlas; NO part of France lies East of 7.5 degreees East, and (by all conventions) France should operate on GMT - as should Holland, Belgiun Denmark, Luxemburg etc. etc.

Having been beaten by Germany in 1940, France was forced to adopt German time. The fact that they did not revert to using GMT after the war presumably confirms that De Gaulle hated the English more than he hated the Germans!

Mike Bibby, St Albans, England -not EU

I remember one year in the 1960's when, as an experiment, British Summer Time was extended throughout the year. Driving to work in Glasgow at that time became a nightmare in the winter months because in the morning, pedestrians (especially schoolchildren) and drivers are still drowsy, and with the morning darkness lasting beyond the morning rush hour, the rate of road accidents rose dramatically. Countries that span numerous time zones (Canada, USA, Russia) seem to manage to conduct their commerce without too much difficulty. What then is the burning desire to get rid if the time differenec of only one hour between GMT and Europe? Is commercial Convenience (read indolence) of greater importance than road safety and pedestrian lives?

Bill Dryden, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

I live in Edinburgh and for as long as I can remember I've detested the sudden plunge into winter darkness at the end of October.
If it was possible I would move the clock forward by two hours so that there would be some useful daylight left at the end of the normal working day for outdoor activities.

Campbell Gillan, Edinburgh, Scotland

About the ONLY benefit of changing the clocks is that it means children are inside mainly! There they can inflict their appalling behaviour on those responsible for it - their parents. British children, in general, are the worst behaved in the world. Mind you their parents are a whisker worse -if that's possible.
Yes yes Shock Horror. Criticise a child! Etc Etc Etc. Soon with luck they will all be so fat they cannot move! But you will still be able to hear them.

Emily W, Newmarket, UK

There are two different questions here, and Anatole has confused them.
The first - "Do we want to be on the same clock as Europe?" is a valid one, and your answer depends upon whether you like the available light (the amount of which is the same on any particular day for a given latitude regardless of the longitude) biased towards the morning or the evening. Durban and Capetown in South Africa are in the same time zone, but the sun rises and sets in Durban about one hour ahead of Capetown, so they tend to get up and retire earlier (measured by the clock).
The second "Do we want to adjust our clocks twice a year?" is more complex, but if the answer to the first question is "yes", then there is no second question to answer - you have to do it!

R. Osmond, Hinckley,

Please start an e-petition, we really need to change this, and stop this self destructive pointless nonsense.

Sandy Hunnisett, Crosby, England

i've noticed for years that with the clocks changing so does traffic in the evening. suddenly people feel the urge to get home earlier increasing rush hour traffic which is normally better spread out. Kids hate not beeing able to go out so much and if they can't get their energy out in the park, it all comes out in frustration in the evening. I also sympathize with all the SAD sufferers; I do find it depressing to have such short evening. Moreover, even if mornings are lighter, there are still lots of us who will soon leave home in the dark and return in the dark. Time for a change.

Claudie Mortreuil, London, UK

I live in Aberdeen and I hate the clock change in October - it just accelerates the onset of dark winter evenings and is depressing. I'd vote for keeping to 'green time'. No clock changes at all would be best - think of all that time saved by not having to adjust all those clock-bearing appliances!

Alex, Aberdeen,

It is not just a matter of driving in the dark in the morning as opposed to the afternoon, as Mr Kaletsky simplicisticly indicates. In the morning in mid-winter there is a severe risk of frost and ice on the roads, which you don't get in the afternoon. And that is not just in Scotland. Even the South of England is not immune, and that creates many of the winter road accidents.
With regard to morning meetings on the Continent, is it really necessary for the whole country to get up in the dark so that a few businessmen can avoid the inconvenience (some would say pleasure) of staying overnight in a European city?
Come off it, Mr Kaletsky, get real.

Michael Garton, Brackley, Northants

While he covers most relevant considerations -- primarily from an opinion-based rather than an analytical viewpoint -- Mr. Kaletsky's arguments ignore the fact that the UK has actually tried this idea before. Ms. Speight is correct: there has to be empirical evidence from this experience that can be used to assess the validity of his suppositions.

I remember that, when I was living in London in the late 1960s, the country experimented for two winters with retaining BST throughout the winter. On the whole, my strongest memory of the experience was feeling far more tired than usual for most of those winters, a phenomenon that I associated with needing to rise and commute to work in the dark every day. Consequently, I would question the potential impacts on productivity of such a shift.

When the 1960s experiment was discontinued, the then government claimed the key factor was pressure from agricultural interests, so it is interesting to read that the farmers are now in favour.

Michael Kemp, Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA

It's worth to note that Portugal changed timezones for the same reasons outlined here, in the 90s but got back to BST after a couple of years. Maybe it would be worth studying that recent experiment before doing it in Britain.

SR, Northampton, UK

This is SO TRUE, but you know those in Little England will oppose such a move out of principle, because they don't want to harmonise with the Continent and make like easier.

For the same reason Little England still talks in miles, pounds and ounces, and hasn't adopted the euro: it's more difficult, makes no sense, but it's not European. Quite pathetic really.

Peter Goddard, Epsom, England, EU

Doesn't Mr Kaletsky know anything about the past? Moving to Summer Time all winter has been tried twice before in my lifetime and each time it failed due to public opposition. The life saving argument doesn't work either for CET here would mean children going to school in the dark instead of - sometimes - coming home in the dark .

If Mr Kaletsky wants to get up in the dark every day he can set his alarm clock to do so, not condemn the rest of us. Or does he perhaps work in continental Europe where the sun rises earlier??

christina Speight, london, uk

I suspect that attitudes to this depend on whether you are a morning person or an evening person. Morning persons like to be early to bed and early to rise, while evening persons prefer the reverse.
Only a ver y small minority need to make contacts with Europe during the day. Perhaps they should change their hours, but that is surely no reason why the rest of us should do so.

Peter Bray, Paphos, Cyprus

Even before the clocks changed it was dark by the time I left work (6pm - not abnormally late) in the evenings... if they didn't change then by December I'd be both arriving at and leaving work in darkness. This must be true for a lot of people - surely it's better to have at least some daylight in the morning while we're not in the office?!

Frankie, London,

A good article with alot of good points. I must point out that here in the north east, we wouldn't object either. November, December, and January are always cold and dark. I don't know anyone who doesn't become depressed when the clocks go back. That date in October is viewed with real dread by everyone. It is an old law, which in an age of energy savings and conservation, is completely outdated and needs to be scrapped. Putting the clocks back in winter is no more than self inflicted punishment. Any political party with enough gumption to change this 'tradition' gets my vote.

Simon, Newcastle on Tyne.

Simon, Newcastle on Tyne, North East England

Yet again, the Tories miss a trick and show themselves still to be out of touch.
The whole questionis a no brainer.The message from business is overwhelming-----'Just Do IT'.

R G James, Brasschaat, Belgium

Anatole, youhave only put up a fraction of the positive benefits. There are a whole range of positive health-related benefits to light evenings e.g., more opportunity to exercise, play outside games with your children, cycle home from work and school.
I am amazed how ill-informed some of the negative comments are. Most can be refuted by simple common sense arguments. The Times should gather the comments together (both positive and negative) and conduct a proper, statistically-sound opinion poll. What ever happened to campaigning journalism? This is far more important than the earlier debate about pub licencing laws; also a gross historical anachronism. The number of people who need to work outside in the light is now far lower than the number who need light for leisure. It isn't really a latitude problem, if Scandinavia prefers CET why do some Brits object?

Alan, Wantage

Alan Bennett, Wantage, Oxfordshire

I've long felt that if we would just call it IBT (Independent British Time) instead of CET (Central European Time), we'd have been on it years ago.

Andrew Dale, London,

Interestingly Mr Kaletsky points out the economic advantages of being aligned with Europe, but not the impact on trading that will be felt with the USA. For example, longer hours required by those working with the States in order to overlap with 'office hours', and this may have a detrimental effect to our economy and society.

Sarah, London, UK

Just as only Nixon could negotiate with communist China, perhaps only Gordon Brown can deliver CET for England. If the Scots feel strongly about it, let Alex Salmond create a separate time zone for Scotland, and see how that helps him in his attempts to persuade Scots of the value of independence.

William, London,

Seasonal variability is indeed greater in higher latitudes. However a time zone that is west of the associated meridian gives dark(er) mornings and light(er) evenings throughout the year. I think the student's argument is that under those circumstances daylight saving time adds extra evening light at the extreme where the impact is less.

Graduate, Hong Kong, China

Astonishing - there's really no argument against having more daylight during waking and working hours. Yet still people will raise red herrings. This is a community thing can't we agree as a community that its best to live most of our lives in daylight?

Clive S , E Sussex,

Time zoning in Europe is all about politics, as businesses and schools are free to open and close at the times that suit them.

The Greenwich meridian passes through France from top to bottom and 12 noon is when the sun is in its zenith on that line. During the Second World war, German-occupied France was put on Germain time, corresponding to Prussia far to the East. The French opted to stay on German time after the war as a way of symbolising their political orientation.

Ximen Qing, Zhuhai, China

What a load of nonsense! If I want to speak to my Spanish contact, I know very well that he (or she) will probably not be around in his office from about 1pm to 4pm, but will work until 9pm-ish. My Norwegian contact will start work at 7.30 and work straight through the day, with just a sandwich for lunch, probably at his desk, and stop at 4.30pm-ish so that he can go sailing or skiing. I adjust my calls to comply, I don't need my clock to be shoing the same time as his!

H L Foxworthy, FORFAR, Angus, Scotland

I live near Malaga just west of Cornwall. I have never understood it all, beyond me - is there a profit for someone or something I am not understanding?

Robert D, Malaga, Spain

To "Emeritus Professor Cambridge": "Student Oxford" is right; he is not denying the relationship between light variability and longitude, simply pointing out the relative effect of distance from the meridian on UK and Western Europe.

Francis not-oxbridge, Madrid,

One problem with using CET is that in the summer, if you live at, say 5 degrees West of Greenwich, you are about 2 and half hours out of synch with the Sun. This means you are suffering from permanent jet lag.
The political implications of one time-zone are another question. The Australians and the Americans live with different zones. Communist China imposes Peking time on everyone. Long live the Brussels Constitution!
M. J. Urquhart, Gijón, Spain.

Mackenzie J. Urquhart, Gijón, Spain

I have to get up before daylight in winter in order to be at work for 9am (and I suspect there are many like me). This would be no different if we moved to CET, but at least I would have an extra hour's daylight at the end of the day to get outside jobs done.

Angela, Shropshire,

This sounds similar to reasons the US extending DST. Unfortunately, the enery study Congess used as the backbone of the change was 40-years-old and not many had read it. You need to take into account the extended work days many now have and the time in other major business centers.

People will adjust their schedule to fit their circumstances. Many work with Asia, while others work in domestic situation or with Europe. You cannot please everyone and they must do what is best for their situation.

TJ, Indianapolis, US / Indiana

Let's just ditch putting the clocks back in winter because I can't go for a run (I live in a village with no street lights) ride my bike safely, clean my car, paint the house, let the kids out, etc. etc. and I can get home by 4.30. The other half suffers from SAD, an extra hour would be a blessing. Just a personal view.

John, Sussex, UK

Talking to Europe is important but frankly if you don't pick up importat calls during lunch it's questionable what you're doing in the global marketplace. Besides, that's why we have email.

The reason not to enact this idiotic plan is America, and the fact that the City powers our economy. Five hours' time change to New York - with London, financial co-center of the world, mutually reinforcing our success - is quite enough. Six would cut the overlap between the NYSE trading hours and London's working day to a paltry 90 mins from the current workable 2.5 hours. If the City moved hours to keep time with New York, we'd likely copy them anyway. Meanwhile we'd have put the US west coast - LA, SF, Seattle - completely outside our working day.

We'd be throwing away half the reason the world's wealthy come to London - so they can talk to America and Japan in the same day. If we get rid of that they'll up sticks to France/Spain. Or did Kaletsky think they came here for the weather?

Elizabeth, 6am in London, 1am in NY,

While I respect the opinions offered, may I recommend an easier, locally controlled solution: have schools shift their starting times. Or businesses, for that matter. If your business requires interaction with the continet, shift the hours of employment to reflect that! Why mess around with shifting clocks, and providing the confusion and interfering with the bodies natural cycles, when a much simpler solution is in every minister's hand?

Please. Let common sense rule the day.

And, don't worry so much what's happening on the continent.

Regards to all...

Dan'l, Portland, USA / Maine

I have never read such a badly written inaccurate statement in my life.Who wants to be at work or go to school before it gets light.Also There is no waste of energy,or economic loss.There are the same number of hours in the day,whatever the time.It was experimented with in the late 1960's and was a failure then.This is not a Scottish question ,it was bad enough in London.I am fuming ,that you publish this rubbish.

mark, London, UK

Can't agree more. I think people accept it because when the clocks change they get distracted by the ever-earlier build-up to Christmas, and the party season. It's only towards the end of January when the real depression kicks in. That was a big factor in my moving to Spain, which is west of the UK but is an hour ahead. Even in mid-winter it is still light at six in the evening here - I even occasionally catch a sunset in January if I can get away from work on time!

Bill, Madrid,

A perfect example of what is wrong with journalism in this country. This "writer" has seen fit to make a number of assumptions, without producing any evidence to back it up. For instance, he fails to state why dark mornings are so much safer than dark evenings, or why people spend far longer on the roads in the evening than in the morning. And of course, "lighter afternoons would probably reduce crime"! I must admit, I hadn't realised that so much crime is committed between 16.00 & 17.00 each day - perhaps we can close a number of prisons as well if we move to CET?!?

Jonathan from London's comment is spot on - you can't increase the amount of daylight hours, so change the time when you are likely to be out and about instead.

Very poor from the Times - this ignorant hack clearly has an agenda to attack Scotland & devolved government, and has chosen a rabble-rousing, simplistic & flawed argument with which to do it.

Stuart, Daventry,

"Student , Oxford, UK" may well be right, but I had always thought that seasonal variability in daylight hours was a factor of latitude rather than longitude.

Emeritus Professor, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge,

You do realise, don't you, that the CET time zone also switches between summer and winter time, with a switch to CEST in summer? I have long thought that the best and safest solution all round would be for the CET zone to ditch summer time (the impact of sumer time is less dramatic in Western Europe than in the UK given that WE is further west relative to its meridian than the UK is to the Greenwich meridian) and for the UK to ditch winter time. Everybody would then be singing from the same hymn sheet, all of the time.

Student, Oxford, UK

heck, why stop at 1 hour? Let's put the clocks forward 6 hours! That way it'll always be light in the evenings, and if doing business with folk in Europe will be harder, think of the benefits for business with India and China.

What amuses me most about arguments over changing the clocks is that no-one mentions the even simpler alternative - changing when we do things. No-one's stopping you from moving to CET by yourself - OK not everyone can change their working hours but we can all get up, eat our meals and go to bed an hour earlier if we want. As for me, I rather enjoy my extra hour in bed.

Jonathan, London,

Ok as far as it goes, but having chosen a time zone (BST say) why should we change the clocks twice a year., at all Part of the economic and health issues are caused by the disruption of changing clocks every spring and autumn. Lets have some constancy and recognise that changing the clocks does not create any extra daylight, merely shifts it from one end of the day to the other.

John Burr, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

"In fact, the time difference makes even telephone communication surprisingly difficult. Continentals typically go to lunch at noon, which is 11am in London, and return at 1.30, which is just when offices in London shut down for lunch. By the time the British businessman has returned from lunch at 2.30, his continental counterpart has only two hours left in his working day. As a result, the effective overlap between the working days in Britain and the Continent is reduced to just four hours."

Anatole, what rubbish. Can't our respective British and French businessmen just email each other?

Brian, Basingstoke,