51996AC1074

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for an eighth European Parliament and Council Directive on Summer-time arrangements` (97/C 30/07)

On 28 May 1996 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 100 A of the Treaty, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 24 July 1996. The Rapporteur was Mr Whitworth.

At its 338th Plenary Session (meeting of 25 September 1996), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by 96 votes for, one vote against and five abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. In November 1993 the Economic and Social Committee gave its Opinion on the proposal for a seventh Council Directive on summer-time arrangements.

1.2. This Directive covered the years 1995 to 1998 inclusive. It maintained a common starting date for summer time on the last Sunday in March in all four years, but prescribed for the first time, a common ending date for all Member States for 1997 and 1998 on the last Sunday in October.

1.3. The Committee endorsed the proposals contained in the draft Directive and it was adopted unchanged on 30 May 1994.

1.4. The Directive now proposed seeks to continue these arrangements (a common starting date on the last Sunday in March and a common ending date on the last Sunday in October) for a further four years i.e. 1998 to 2001 inclusive.

1.5. The proposed Directive is accompanied by a Report summarizing the findings of a study undertaken in 1995 by consultants engaged by the Commission into the effects of summer time on such matters as energy consumption, public health, working conditions and lifestyles, agriculture, environmental protection, road safety and the tourism and leisure industries. The Study is a comprehensive one running to 263 pages and drawing on the results of 38 previous researches in this field. Opinions were canvassed from 215 organizations in the various Member States.

1.6. The Report states that the Study found an overwhelming preference for maintaining a summer-time regime in the European Union and general agreement on the need for full harmonization of dates for the beginning and end of summer time throughout the Union.

2. Comments on the proposed Directive

2.1. Although the Seventh Directive has a further year and a half to run and the common ending date of the last Sunday in October has not yet come into effect the Committee believes that it is timely to bring forward a Directive covering the next four-year period so that the industries and sectors concerned can plan ahead.

2.2. In the light of the view it took in its Opinion on the Seventh Directive, coupled with the generally favourable reception to its provisions as evidenced by the Commission and in the Report of the Study, the Committee endorses the proposals contained in the draft Eighth Directive.

3. Comments on the Report

3.1. The Study addressed three options in relation to summer time:

- maintain the status quo for all Member States;

- UK and Ireland to adopt Central European Time;

- the abandonment of summer time in all Member States with UK and Ireland adopting Central European Time.

3.2. The Commission notes in the Report, and the Committee affirms as it did in its 1993 Opinion, that the decision on which time zone to apply is a matter for each Member State to determine for itself.

3.3. The Report states that the Study's findings indicated an overwhelming preference for maintaining a summer-time regime in all Member States and that its abandonment would bring economic and social drawbacks in a number of areas. It believes that this rules out the third option.

3.4. It also concludes that the Study showed that there would be benefits to Ireland and the UK in harmonizing their clocks with those of the other Member States which form the Central European time zone and that this standardization would benefit those countries also.

3.5.1. The Committee believes that the Study provides useful and pertinent data in the various areas it covers but inevitably it contains a number of shortcomings; in particular the attempts to quantify the perceived advantages and disadvantages in financial terms are somewhat questionable. Understandably in the context of Option 2 its data was predominantly from the UK and Ireland. The Study was carried out before Portugal's recent move to CET minus one hour (same as Ireland and UK).

3.5.2. In the important area of road safety full information was only forthcoming from four Member States with partial information from five. The effects on children going to school in the dark were not specifically addressed nor the extent to which these might be affected by the adoption of CET in Ireland, the UK (and Portugal). However the data shows that in all nine countries the incidence of road casualties is at its peak around 1600 hours and that in Great Britain a change to Option 2 would lead to a reduction in such deaths and injuries.

3.5.3. The analysis concentrates more on the benefits of lighter evenings and less on the disadvantages of darker mornings but concludes that the former are particularly pronounced as regards energy consumption, leisure activities and tourism while the latter could cause some difficulties in agriculture and the construction industries.

3.6. The Report on the Study ignores the discrepancy between the Eastern European Time Zone (applicable in Finland, Greece and the countries in Eastern Europe applying for membership) where the clocks are one hour ahead of the Central Zone. The Committee believes that it is unrealistic to suppose that it will ever be practicable for all Member States to adopt the same time zone.

3.7. The question of summer time is a highly subjective one and generates strong individual feelings when any change is contemplated. Notwithstanding its shortcomings, by producing a considerable volume of objective evidence the Study makes a valuable contribution to discussion in this area. In particular it does demonstrate that as far as Ireland and the UK are concerned the benefits of a change to Central European Time would outweigh the disadvantages across the whole social and economic spectrum.

4. Conclusions

4.1. The Committee endorses the proposals in the Draft Directive.

4.2. Despite their perceived shortcomings the Committee commends the Report and the Study to interested parties in those Member States where any change is contemplated as providing some objective data on which to base their assessment of the position.

4.3. The Committee endorses the Commission's statement that its task in confined to the harmonization of dates for the starting and ending of summer time and that any decision to alter other time arrangements in the individual Member States rests with them alone.

Brussels, 25 September 1996.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER