Every year we have the debate about the seemingly complex issue of winding a clock back an hour when it comes to the winter. There is inevitable coverage on the breakfast news about the concerns over safety and also those that claim that they cannot work efficiently if the clocks don't go back. However the subject seems to be potentially getting a parliamentary revisit almost 30 years after the last experiment with a "constant British summer time" started without eventual success.

For me I have never really thought about the subject and it wasn't until Unity on Liberal Conspiracy posted a list of 20 bills that will attempt to be passed through Parliament in the next few months. So having now thought about it, here is my analysis of the situation.

• Why did it fail at the time?
• Why should we revisit the situation?
• Are we too inflexible?

Why did it fail at the time?

Unfortunately I haven't the patience to access the report ("Review of British Standard Time", HMSO, 1970) that shows exactly why the experiment failed. Needless to say that a lot of the reasons it failed are potentially no longer relevant. While it is not apparent whether road deaths were introduced to the debate as a pro or a con to the experiments outcome, there are also reviews into situations in the report that have socially and technologically changed over the years

Now we have a one year experiment proposed under a different banner (Saving energy as opposed to lightening our evenings), being proposed by Mr Tim Yeo. But what is the background that it has to eventually overcome?

Generally accepted reasons as to the failure of the original experiment (in the context of the late 60's) are opposition by business and specifically farmers, as well as concerns by Scottish people that would live under some kind of eternal darkness due to their geographical position.

Now, however, it would seem that the biggest opponents of the change come from people that are opposed to change itself. Mr Yeo has stated in parliamentary session that he has a letter from the national union of farmers supporting his bill, largely due to technology making some of the issues it raised irrelevant. Now surely if farmers can be appeased with the generally awkward and long hours that they are required to work, the rest of us have little reason to be negative to the idea (Scottish people excused).

On the Scottish issue it is important to note that in the winter they currently don't have light in the mornings until approaching 9am. Putting the clocks forward an hour would leave them in darkness until 10am.

Why should we revisit the situation?

Not through lack of trying has this idea been off the books for a long time. Attempts seem to have come and gone to re-test the experiment of the 60's but not seen the light of day (har har). Usually the reasons cited are those of road/pedestrian safety but in today's new age sensibility of sustainability and eco-friendly sentiments there is a significant case to also be made for the potential energy saving that can be made. Clearly this is positive for individuals, businesses and for the UK in terms of meeting its environmental targets for emissions. It is this that has been taken by Mr Yeo to provide the main point for the introduction of this new bill.

There are evidence for these reasons (and more) that can be found in a quite hefty "Time for a change" review. Firstly there is definite assertion that despite the many changes to road safety through legislation and education since the experiment almost 30 years ago, there would still be a net benefit to safety (specifically for children) by reducing more accidents in the evenings than could potentially be created in the mornings.

Secondly we have an extension in the hours of daylight at a time when people would want to undertake leisure activities, specifically group/team sports...a great benefit for the overall health of the nation...as well as a £1bn potential increase in tourism to the country as a result of there simply being more time to spend your money!

Finally you have the energy savings, amounting to what is probably currently nearer £300million in electricity savings alone for the country than the £260million reported in the review, ultimately just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to potential savings and not even touching the issue of lower emissions

A good summary of the benefits to people aside from the energy savings shows that it is also generally accepted that not only is living in lighter hours a good thing for us to do, but that changing those hours is also not exactly a positive thing either.

Are we too inflexible?

Well the honest answer seems to be "no", not currently. In a debate early in 2007 the following interaction took place between two MP's...

Mr. MacNeil: If harmonisation of working hours with the European Union was such a strong consideration for the City of London, surely people would just start work an hour earlier than at present.

Mr. Yeo: That is exactly what they do. I have represented South Suffolk for 24 years and many more people now catch the 5.30 train from Manningtree to get to the City in time to do business with the continent. That is the crowded train now, whereas 24 years ago it was the 6.45 train.

It seems like the most simple solution, and certainly there would appear to be evidence that people adopt the most simple solution where able to do so. The question is then is why the perception is that it is ok for London workers that rely on harmonisation with European markets to go to work an hour earlier than the rest of us but that we can't frankly and honestly debate the prospect of everyone else working an hour earlier too in exchange for a re-alignment of what time that actually ends up being in our superficial and rather subjective perspective of "time".

It is those Scottish people that this applies too most, and appeasing them will be ever so important in the success of the bill by Mr Yeo. But the question also has to be how willing they are to adapt to gain the many benefits that such changes proposed can introduce.

It would be a sad state of affairs if people are potentially too stuck in their ways to think outside of the box, thinking that they'll be going to work in "the middle of the night" in terms of darkness. If businesses, organisations and authorities generally accepted a change in working hours the difference felt would be negligible. What difference does it really make for example if schools in the summer start at 9am while in the winter they start at 10am, exactly? Worries about kids being unable to sleep on a light "11pm" evening in the south of England go out of the window when being awake at 11pm is the equivalent of being awake at 9pm currently.

Conclusion

Ultimately there seems to be next to nothing to lose if we had a change of ethos as well as a change of time management in this country, and the bill has also applied for a much shorter period of time to experiment such a change than failed bills in the past.

The focus, regardless of the result of this bill, needs to shift from generic legislation dictating our times and therefore supposedly our working hours, to individuals, organisations and local areas taking a more active role in managing what they do with the timestamps they've acquired. There is of course the potential for a disjointed level of business across the country that could be detrimental, but in terms of decisions being made where money is law I'm sure we can all be confident that no-one is going to shoot themselves in the foot with such decisions.

A one year experiment backed up by the good standard of research already available could be the way for proponents of this idea to finally go and gain some success, and with some polls showing a 3:1 level of those in favour of the changes perhaps the time for change will be now.