Greg Knight: Forward thinking sheds more light on benefits of changing the clocks

And, alas, it will be depressingly the same for the following 147 days, until we reach March 27, 2011, when we are told to put our clocks

forward again.

The practice was first proposed in 1895 by George Hudson but it was not until the First World War that changing the clocks became commonplace in Europe. Many countries have used it since then. Longer summer days offer room to shift daylight from the morning to the evening so that first light is not wasted.

On April 30, 1916, Germany and its allies were the first to change

their clocks as a way to conserve coal during wartime.

Britain and many other European countries soon followed suit, with the United States adopting the policy in 1918. Since then, the world has seen many enactments, adjustments, and repeals.

But a growing number of politicians (me included) regard our current practice as flawed because we have not gone far enough. Our current chosen time settings mean that for most of those 147 days, people at work, college or school have little or no sunlit leisure time.

So, we should put our clocks forward an extra hour all year and move to a system of Single/Double Summer Time (SDST). Such a move would bring our waking hours more into line with the hours of daylight, rather than as now, where daylight is wasted in the early morning, when most of us are still asleep.

Putting our clocks forward by an extra hour would not only result in a gain of extra daylight in summer; we would also reduce our national energy consumption, and it is likely we would increase the turnover in tourism in Yorkshire by several millions of pounds a year.

A study by Cambridge University confirms that energy consumption would be lower, particularly in winter. Also, in answer to questioning from

me, a Transport Minister has confirmed that the adoption of SDST would save up to 100 lives a year, with 200 or so additional serious accidents being prevented.

The reason is that in the mornings, most road journeys are predictable –people are driving to work or taking their children to school.

So, if for a couple of months a year, the first journey of the day was in partial darkness, it would still be safer than the present situation where for more than three months of the year, afternoon and early evening journeys are carried out in darkness.

Journeys undertaken at the end of the day are less predictable and potentially more dangerous – on the way back from school, parents may go shopping, or on the way home from work, some may decide to go to a restaurant or visit friends.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents agrees with this analysis and it believes that many serious accidents would be avoided

if our clocks were put forward by another hour.

The potential to save energy comes primarily from its effects on residential use. Delaying the ostensible time of sunset and sunrise reduces the use of electricity in the evening and increases it in the morning. Lighting costs are reduced if the evening reduction outweighs the morning increase, and all studies say that it would do so in Britain.

A 2007 study estimated that putting clocks forward would result in a two per cent decrease in average daily electricity consumption across the UK.

Age Concern supports the adoption of SDST, too, believing that lighter evenings will encourage many older people to spend more time outside.

The British Tourist Authority – another supporter of change – says that by adjusting our clocks forward an hour, we would increase turnover in tourism by more than 1bn and would extend our tourist season, too, helping to create extra jobs.

Sports bodies such as the Football Association, the England and Wales Cricket Board, and the Lawn Tennis Association are all supportive of change. They say the move would allow more time for sport, making people healthier.

It seems the only area where there may be an adverse effect would be on television viewing figures, as more people would spend their lighter early evenings out of doors.

On December 3, there is an opportunity for Parliament to bring about change, in the form of a Private Member's Bill, which has my full support.

The Government, which has already made a number of brave decisions in the public interest, is being uncharacteristically coy about its intentions. Rumour has it that Ministers may block the Bill, if only to appease a handful of Scots.

I hope they do not. The Government should embrace this Bill and then conduct an experiment to see if a clock change does prove to be as good for us, as all the evidence indicates it will be.

I commend to the Prime Minister the words of Sir Winston Churchill on this subject. Churchill predicted more daylight hours would "enlarge the opportunities for the pursuit of health and happiness among the millions of people who live in this country".

Greg Knight is the Conservative MP for East Yorkshire.