Twice a year, people across the UK adjust their clocks, moving between Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) in winter and British Summer Time (BST) during the summer months. This practice, known as daylight saving time (DST), has been a recurring topic of debate for decades. As societal patterns shift and new research emerges, the question remains: will the UK continue with these biannual clock changes, or is reform on the horizon? The conversation involves balancing tradition, health, safety, and economic factors, alongside considerations unique to post-Brexit Britain and its devolved nations.

Current government stance: Maintaining the status quo

For the time being, the UK government plans to stick with the current system of changing the clocks. There is no active legislation proposed to abolish daylight saving time. Officials have stated that the existing arrangement, switching between GMT and BST, provides the "optimal use of the available daylight across the UK". This suggests a belief that the current balance between darker mornings in summer and darker evenings in winter is the best compromise.

When the European Union considered scrapping clock changes, the UK government indicated it was unlikely to follow suit. Public opinion appears divided, with a YouGov poll showing 44% favouring the current system versus 39% wanting to stop the changes. Without overwhelming public demand or compelling new evidence, the official position remains cautious. Previous attempts to change the system, like a Private Member’s Bill between 2010-2012 proposing year-round BST, ultimately failed in Parliament. The government's stance is clear: continue with DST unless significant pressure or evidence dictates otherwise.

Brexit and EU influence: Navigating post-brexit time policy

In 2019, the European Parliament voted in favour of abolishing seasonal clock changes by 2021, leaving member states to choose between permanent summer or winter time. Although this proposal stalled due to lack of consensus among member states, the debate significantly influenced discussions in the UK, particularly after Brexit.

While the UK is no longer bound by EU directives on time policy, potential EU action still casts a shadow. A House of Lords committee warned during the Brexit transition that if the EU scrapped DST and the UK did not, it could lead to awkward time differences with continental Europe. They stressed that any UK decision would need "careful consideration," especially in light of neighbours' actions.

A particularly sensitive issue is the island of Ireland. If the Republic of Ireland, an EU member, were to abolish clock changes following an EU directive, while Northern Ireland (part of the UK) continued to change clocks, it could create a time border for half the year. This prospect raises significant practical and political concerns, potentially resulting in "two time zones between the north and south". UK ministers have acknowledged the need to weigh neighbours' decisions carefully to avoid such problems, suggesting coordination might be necessary if changes occur.

Brexit has given the UK the freedom to diverge from potential EU time policy changes, and so far, it has chosen to maintain its traditional clock changes. However, should the EU revive its plans to abolish DST, the UK would face renewed pressure to reconsider its position, particularly concerning the Irish border.

Arguments for keeping daylight saving time: Balancing light and tradition

Those who support maintaining the current system of clock changes often highlight the balance it aims to strike throughout the year. The key arguments focus on optimising daylight use according to the season:

• Brighter winter mornings: Reverting to GMT in autumn ensures that sunrise doesn't occur excessively late during the darkest months. Even in northern parts of the UK like Edinburgh, sunrise is around 8:45 am in mid-winter under the current system. This is seen as important for the safety of school children and commuters travelling in the morning.
• Lighter summer evenings: Switching to BST provides longer daylight hours in the evenings during summer, which proponents argue encourages outdoor leisure activities, benefits tourism, and supports retail sectors.
• Adaptability: The current system is familiar, and many sectors, from agriculture to construction, have adapted their schedules around it. Maintaining the status quo avoids the disruption and potential costs associated with a major change.
• Regional balance: Supporters argue the current system is a compromise that considers the different daylight patterns across the UK, particularly accommodating the concerns of Scotland regarding very dark winter mornings.

Arguments for abolishing daylight saving time: Health, economy, and simplicity

Conversely, a growing number of arguments favour ending the twice-yearly clock changes, often referred to as adopting permanent daylight saving time or permanent standard time. The main points include:

• Health benefits: Eliminating the abrupt one-hour shift could prevent disruption to human circadian rhythms and sleep patterns. This might reduce associated health risks like increased heart attacks and stress levels observed immediately following the spring clock change.
• Improved road safety: Some safety groups, like RoSPA, argue that permanent BST (staying on summer time year-round) would provide lighter evenings in autumn and winter, reducing road accidents during the busy evening commute. Past UK trials and international studies suggest potential reductions in casualties.
• Potential energy savings: While debated, some analyses suggest permanent BST could reduce energy consumption, particularly during winter evening peak hours, by shifting activity into daylight. This gained traction during the 2022 energy crisis, with estimates of significant household savings.
• Economic productivity: Avoiding the disruption could prevent the dip in worker productivity often observed after the spring clock change due to sleep loss. Some economic models suggest potential welfare gains from ending the changes.
• Public convenience: Abolishing the clock changes would simplify daily life, removing the confusion and minor hassle experienced twice a year. It offers a stable, predictable schedule year-round.
• Mental wellbeing: Consistent time could potentially mitigate the increase in depressive symptoms sometimes linked to the sudden arrival of darker evenings when clocks go back in autumn. Permanent BST, specifically, would eliminate the "gloomier evenings" of late autumn and winter.

Health and wellbeing: The circadian rhythm consideration

The impact of clock changes UK on health is a central part of the debate. Medical experts increasingly argue that the abrupt shift disrupts our internal body clocks, or circadian rhythms. Research from institutions like the London School of Economics highlights detrimental effects on sleep, physical health, stress levels, and mental wellbeing following the transitions.

The spring clock change, when an hour of sleep is lost, appears particularly stressful. Studies have noted a spike in heart attacks (up to 24%) in the week following the shift forward. While some effects might level out over the year, the acute strain is concerning. In 2024, the British Sleep Society issued a statement calling the changes "adverse to sleep and circadian health" and recommended abolishing DST transitions, favouring permanent Standard Time (GMT) year-round. They argue morning daylight is crucial for aligning human biology.

Mental health is another consideration. Some studies link the autumn clock change and the subsequent earlier onset of darkness with increased rates of depression and seasonal affective disorder (SAD). Proponents of permanent BST argue that maintaining lighter evenings year-round could alleviate these seasonal mood shifts. However, chronobiologists counter that sufficient morning light, better provided by permanent GMT, is vital for regulating mood and alertness. This highlights a key tension: the potential benefits of lighter evenings versus the biological importance of morning light.

Safety and accident prevention: Morning versus evening darkness

Road safety arguments feature prominently on both sides. Road safety organisations like RoSPA have long campaigned for permanent BST, arguing that lighter evenings in autumn and winter would reduce pedestrian and driver casualties during the dangerous evening rush hour. Data from a UK trial of permanent BST between 1968-1971 showed a net reduction in road casualties, supporting this view.

However, the counter-argument focuses on morning safety. If the UK adopted permanent BST, sunrise in parts of Scotland and northern England could be as late as 10 am in winter. This raises concerns about the safety of children travelling to school and workers commuting in pitch darkness. The 1968-71 trial did see an increase in early-morning accidents in Scotland, even though overall casualties fell UK-wide. The current government position maintains that reverting to GMT in winter helps ensure most people travel to work in daylight. This trade-off between morning and evening safety remains a core dilemma in deciding the future of daylight saving time UK.

Energy and environment: Revisiting the energy saving rationale

Daylight saving time was originally introduced partly to save energy, primarily by reducing the need for artificial lighting in the evenings. Today, the energy argument is more complex. Modern energy consumption patterns, involving heating, cooling, and electronics, mean the net effect of shifting daylight is less clear. Some studies suggest negligible overall energy savings from DST.

However, the energy crisis in 2022-2023 brought renewed focus to this area. Professor Aoife Foley argued that staying on BST through the winter could significantly reduce peak evening energy demand (5-7 pm) as more activity would occur in daylight. She estimated potential household savings and a reduction in carbon emissions. This environmental argument for permanent BST gained traction, framed as a modern energy conservation measure.

The government publicly refuted these claims, maintaining that the evidence doesn't support a change and that potential evening savings could be offset by increased energy use on darker winter mornings. The environmental case remains contested, with mixed evidence depending on lifestyle patterns and geography. Future shifts in energy policy or climate priorities could potentially revive DST reform as an efficiency measure.

Economic and social factors: Productivity, convenience, and international alignment

Beyond health and energy, economic and social factors influence the DST debate. The disruption caused by clock changes has been linked to reduced worker productivity immediately following the spring shift, imposing hidden costs on the economy. Some analyses suggest ending DST could yield overall economic welfare gains. Conversely, proponents of the current system argue it benefits different industries at different times of the year – favouring morning activities in winter (GMT) and evening activities in summer (BST). Permanent BST is sometimes argued to boost leisure and retail spending during darker months due to lighter evenings.

From a social perspective, many find the biannual clock change inconvenient and confusing. Abolishing it offers simplicity and a stable routine. Opinion polls suggest a preference among many Britons for permanent BST if a choice had to be made, valuing longer summer evenings for socialising and exercise. However, other groups, like farmers and some rural communities, traditionally prefer standard time for its alignment with the solar day during winter mornings.

International alignment is another factor. The UK's financial markets, aviation, and other internationally connected sectors benefit from synchronised clock changes with Europe and North America. If the UK were to abolish DST unilaterally while major partners continued, it could complicate scheduling and trade. Therefore, decisions made by the EU and US regarding their own clock changes will likely influence the UK's thinking.

Recent developments and future outlook: Expert opinions and political landscape

While no immediate change is planned, recent years have seen renewed research and discussion. Expert bodies like the British Sleep Society are taking stronger positions, urging abolition based on health evidence. Economic analyses are attempting to quantify the costs and benefits. These reports raise awareness among policymakers, even if DST isn't a top political priority.

The issue surfaces periodically in Parliament, often prompted by EU developments or specific concerns like the Irish border. Although no official government review is currently underway, ministers indicate they are monitoring impacts and gathering views. Public discourse spikes around each clock change, fuelled by media commentary and ongoing polls showing a divided public. Advocacy groups continue to campaign, but haven't yet achieved mass traction.

Looking ahead, the UK is likely to maintain the status quo in the short term. However, the issue isn't permanently settled. Several factors could trigger a policy review: significant new health findings, another energy crisis making savings attractive, a decisive shift in public opinion, or, most probably, action taken by the EU or the US. If major trading partners abolish clock changes, the practicalities of remaining out of sync might push the UK to follow suit. The groundwork for potential reform is being laid, even if political action remains uncertain.

Devolved nations: Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales - regional perspectives

Any decision on the future of daylight saving time in the UK must consider the specific perspectives of the devolved nations.

Scotland, due to its higher latitude, has historically resisted permanent BST. In mid-winter, sunrise could be close to 10 am in parts of Scotland under year-round BST, raising significant concerns about dark mornings, particularly for school children and rural communities. Scottish leaders have emphasised that any change must consider Scotland's unique circumstances. While time zones are a matter reserved for Westminster, strong Scottish opposition would pose a political challenge to implementing permanent BST UK-wide. The memory of discontent during the 1968-71 permanent BST trial still influences the debate.

Northern Ireland's primary concern relates to the border with the Republic of Ireland. Maintaining time alignment across the island is crucial for trade, travel, and daily life. If the Republic were to abolish clock changes under an EU directive, pressure would mount on the UK government to ensure Northern Ireland follows suit to avoid a disruptive time border. This situation effectively links UK time policy to potential EU decisions and Irish coordination.

Wales generally experiences daylight patterns similar to England and hasn't expressed a distinct stance separate from the UK government's position.

These regional dynamics add complexity. Scotland's preference for avoiding very dark winter mornings might make permanent GMT more politically feasible than permanent BST, though GMT sacrifices the lighter summer evenings enjoyed in England. Northern Ireland's situation necessitates careful consideration of Irish alignment. Building consensus across the devolved nations is a key hurdle for any potential reform.

Global trends: A worldwide shift away from clock changes?

The UK's decision-making will also be influenced by global trends. Worldwide, the practice of changing clocks seasonally is diminishing. Only around 70 countries still observe DST, and many are reconsidering it. In the last decade, countries like Russia, Turkey, Mexico, and several others have abolished the practice.

Europe came close to abolishing DST, and while the plan stalled, the underlying momentum remains. If the EU eventually acts, the UK could find itself an outlier in Europe. Similarly, in North America, there's growing support for ending clock changes. The US Senate passed legislation for permanent DST (though it stalled), and many states favour the move. If the US or Canada were to adopt a permanent time, it would shift the transatlantic norm and increase pressure on the UK.

This global trend suggests DST is increasingly seen as an outdated concept. As more countries share research on the negative impacts and move away from clock changes, the UK may find it harder to justify maintaining the practice, especially if key economic partners adopt permanent time arrangements. Observing how changes play out in other countries provides valuable data for UK policymakers.

Balancing tradition and progress: The uncertain future of DST in the UK

The future of daylight saving time in the UK remains uncertain. The current government favours sticking with the existing system, citing a balance of daylight and lack of consensus for change. However, arguments against the twice-yearly clock changes, focusing on health impacts, safety concerns, potential energy savings, and sheer inconvenience, are gaining traction, supported by growing expert opinion.

Regional considerations, particularly Scotland's aversion to dark winter mornings and Northern Ireland's need for alignment with the Republic of Ireland, add significant political complexity. The most likely catalyst for change in the UK would be definitive action by the European Union or the United States. If major international partners abolish clock changes, the practicalities and optics might compel the UK to reconsider.

For now, the familiar ritual of changing the clocks looks set to continue in the immediate future. Yet, the conversation is evolving. With ongoing research and shifting global norms, the biannual clock change feels increasingly like a practice under scrutiny. Whether the UK eventually decides the time has come to abolish daylight saving time remains an open question, dependent on a complex interplay of science, politics, public opinion, and international developments.