Daylight saving time is back: here are the reasons why it should be abolished

During the night between Saturday 24 and Sunday 25 October, standard time will come back into force throughout Italia, marking the end of seven months of daylight saving time which began on 29 March. At 3.00 am, the clocks must be set back by one hour to 2.00 am. This means we’ll be able to sleep for an extra hour, but also that the sun will rise and set an hour earlier than before. As happens every year, this time of year sees a renewed debate on whether or not it is worthwhile to have a dual time system throughout the year.

The Chamber of Deputies has also addressed this issue through a fact-finding inquiry carried out by the Committee on Productive Activities and initiated by the League MP Andrea Barabotti. The picture that emerged during the series of hearings at Montecitorio highlights an almost universal consensus amongst those heard that the current system of two seasonal time changes per year can be overcome, due to the critical issues – of a health and organisational nature – that the transition phase causes in the days immediately following the change. In light of this consensus and the recurring nature of the burdens associated with the two annual transitions, the Committee recommends the abolition of the twice-yearly seasonal time changes. Montecitorio, however, leaves the choice between permanent summer time and permanent standard time open, which – as no clear consensus has emerged – requires a separate assessment of the respective energy, health, social and economic impacts, as well as their geographical distribution.

In its written submission, the CGIL highlighted how the rationale behind the practice of changing the clocks is to bring the time forward in order to make better use of natural light, thereby reducing the use of artificial lighting in the evening hours. However, Geopop has pointed out that, over the last twenty years, the widespread adoption of energy-efficient lighting technologies has reduced these requirements. These observations are consistent with those set out in the written submission filed by Terna S.p.A. The company believes, in fact, that the benefit, in terms of the expected reduction in electricity demand, of a timekeeping system based on permanent summer time, compared with a system based on the twice-yearly time change or one based on permanent standard time, is, on the whole, limited and has progressively diminished over recent years. According to Terna, this phenomenon is ‘most likely linked to an increase in the energy efficiency of lighting technologies and systems’.

Confesercenti and Confcommercio have argued that the introduction of permanent summer time, with the resulting increase in natural light during the afternoon and evening, could benefit the retail sector in three distinct ways: an increase in people’s willingness to go out and spend time in shopping areas after working hours; and an increase in perceived safety and urban vitality, with positive effects on footfall in shopping streets and historic town centres.

The health aspect was one of the issues examined in greatest depth during the hearings, with the involvement of scientific societies, doctors and researchers. The hearings revealed an almost universal consensus that the current system of two seasonal time changes per year can be overcome: this view was expressed – albeit with differing arguments and conclusions – by the Italian Academy of Sleep Medicine (AIMS), the director of the Centre for Narcolepsy and Sleep Disorders at the IRCCS Institute of Neurological Sciences in Bologna (Dr Plazzi), Dr Domenico Maurizio Toraldo, Prof. Giovanni Esposito and the Italian Society of Environmental Medicine (SIMA). This convergence on abolishing the seasonal time change does not, however, amount to a consensus on the system to be adopted in its place. On this point, the AIMS has emphasised that the call to abolish the seasonal time change should not be interpreted as automatic support for permanent summer time, as these are two distinct issues and, from a biological perspective, not equivalent. AIMS believes that “permanent standard time remains the most prudent option for sleep, circadian alignment and public health, in the absence of clear scientific evidence supporting permanent daylight saving time as the preferable option”. The director of the Centre for Narcolepsy and Sleep Disorders at the IRCCS in Bologna expressed a similar view.