In Strasbourg on Thursday 8 February, the European Parliament adopted, by 384 votes to 153 with 12 abstentions, a resolution presented by Karima Delli (Greens/EFA, France), on behalf of the committee on transport, calling for a detailed impact assessment of the current system of changing the clocks twice a year and, if necessary, a proposal to revise its rules.
Numerous citizens’ initiatives have shown that public opinion is concerned at the twice-yearly time changes which, regulated by Directive 2000/84/EC, mark the start and end of summer time in the last weekends of March and October, Parliament stresses.
Moreover, many scientific studies have no conclusive results, but have said that there are negative effects on human health, it stresses.
Stressing that it is essential to maintain a unified time regime in the EU, Parliament calls upon the Commission to carry out an in-depth evaluation of Directive 2000/84/EC and, if necessary, present a proposal for its revision.
The initial, excessively radical, version of the text proposed by Delli called for the end of time changes by means of a proposed modification of the directive.
The resolution will be submitted to the Commission, the Council of the EU, the governments of the member states and the national parliaments.
Citing public health reasons first and foremost, a multi-party coalition led by Pavel Svoboda (EPP, Czech Republic), chair of Parliament's committee on legal affairs, began the debate in autumn 2017 with a view to abolishing time changes, originally guided by considerations of energy savings, which never proved consistent (see EUROPE 11891).
“According to one specialist, 20% of people suffer consequences from time change in terms of health. Another specialist spoke of a sort of ‘jetlag’, reflected in increased consumption of tobacco and alcohol. All of these kinds of indirect costs could be as much as 1% of EU GDP. The proposal to change the directive would be welcome”, Svoboda told a debate on Thursday.
“Time change leads to a mini time delay, which has an impact on the health of children and the elderly, fatigue, insomnia”, said Inés Ayala Sender (S&D, Spain).
Apart from its impact on health (sick leave, depression, performance of schoolchildren, road accidents) and the economy (drop in GDP), it also has negative consequences for the climate (increases in CO2 emissions), said Gesine Meissner (ALDE, Germany).
“In the transport sector, changing the clocks has two effects: the lack of sleep it causes for many citizens, which is a genuine road safety issue, and the administrative burden on goods transport in Europe”, Delli stressed.
“It's is a relic from the 1970s, when we tried to save energy, but the impact turned out to be marginal. It is hard for certain vulnerable people - young children, the elderly - to adjust their biological clocks to the change twice a year”, said Finland’s Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D).
On the basis of discoveries of the winner of the 2017 Nobel Prize for medicine, Heidi Hautala (Greens/EFA, Finland) stressed the many risks to health and sleep hygiene.
“We propose that the Commission strike a balance between the advantages and disadvantages, on the basis of the scientific contribution”, stressed Belgium’s Ivo Belet (EPP).
“Letting member states free to apply uncoordinated time changes would be detrimental for the internal market. I am therefore against such a solution, whether that means simply repealing the directive or allowing individual member states to opt out of the harmonised regime”, warned the Commissioner for Transport, Violeta Bulc.
“There are two options that would allow for a continued harmonised approach: stop time changes for all member states by amending the directive, or leave the summer time rules unchanged. If one were to select the first option, it would also have to be established when to abolish time changes – after the last change to wintertime, or after the last change for summer time”, Bulc concluded. (Original version in French by Emmanuel Hagry)