President. – The next item is the report (A5-0356/2000) by Mrs Honeyball, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on summer time arrangements [COM(2000)0302 – C5-0322/2000-2000/0140(COD)].

  Honeyball (PSE), rapporteur. – Madam President, this report is very straightforward: at present, directives on summer time only last for five years, and then have to come back to Parliament to be renewed. What this report is suggesting is that those arrangements be made permanent, so that we have summer time in place in perpetuity, as it were, rather than its having to be ratified by this Parliament every five years.

There is no good reason not to accept that in principle. Indeed, there are many very strong arguments in favour of having summer time. These arguments include less energy consumption; transport; hotels and restaurants, which have found planning easier; leisure activities; increasing the quality of life; and helping to prevent disruption of people's bio-rhythms. Most Member States accept and want summer time, and thus this report is not at all controversial.

The advantage of making summer time a permanent arrangement would be to make planning easier. Particular sectors involved in this, for example, IT and computers, transport, communications, air and rail, have said to us and to the Commission that they would find it very helpful to know that there will be summer time every year, that it will be permanent, so they can make forward-planning arrangements.

There is also a good argument in terms of the single market, where again similar planning considerations apply. In terms of the substance of the report, what is being suggested is that the current arrangements, with summer time starting on the last Sunday in March and ending on the last Sunday in October, remain in place and are made permanent arrangements.

However, amendments have been put forward calling for a review and for a report to be produced at the end of five years. As the rapporteur, I would recommend that these amendments be supported as they make a lot of sense.

The main argument in favour of these amendments and of a report at the end of five years actually concerns enlargement of the European Union, which, following the Nice Summit, is particularly apposite and appropriate. The point is that if new Member States join us they may not have existing arrangements which conform with what we are proposing, and they may well need time to come into line with our arrangements and to bring about the sort of harmonisation we are proposing.

In view of the changes that we will very likely be undergoing, it would not be a very good idea to introduce permanent arrangements now, with no opportunity for a review. That is the strongest argument in favour of having a review and therefore supporting the amendments to that effect. There are other issues we would still like to look at, issues like energy consumption and health and safety, as they relate to summer time; but the strongest argument is undoubtedly that we want to allow new Member States the opportunity to come into line with the arrangements.

So, I would ask Parliament, when the vote takes place, to support all these amendments so that we can have the best possible arrangements for the existing Member States and for future Member States.

  Vlasto (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a directive on summer time arrangements that we are examining today is a good proposal. It is a proposal based on extensive research carried out at the request of the Commission. The results of that research are interesting in that they contradict certain generally accepted ideas.

First, most sectors of the economy have now incorporated the principle of summer time. What is more, some socio-economic sectors, particularly IT, transport, telecommunications and tourism, have asked for the change to summer time to become permanent. In fact, time is a basic datum which these sectors need to incorporate into their products and services. That means they need to know about the arrangements for changing to summer time in all the Member States in advance.

Secondly, certain assumed negative effects have clearly not materialised. Thus, in terms of health, any problems experienced are of short duration and fully reversible. Nor do the results of the survey indicate any negative effects on animal biorhythms or working conditions on farms.

On the other hand, the research reveals other, less expected, implications. Summer time seems to be in step with the way lifestyles are developing in our societies, due in particular to later working hours, and the extension of hours for shops, public services and transport. The extra hour of daylight provided by moving to summer time is particularly beneficial in the tourism and leisure sector, where increases in business directly linked to lighter and longer evenings have been recorded. Summer time definitely seems to go hand-in-hand with better quality of life, as the positive effects of the summer time period are far more significant than the transitional problems linked to the change itself.

The European Parliament has only one amendment to the initial proposal from the European Commission. It calls for a report every five years on the incidence of the arrangements under the Summer Time Directive. If these reports show that the summer time arrangements need to be altered, the Commission could then bring forward appropriate proposals. The first report will be drafted by 30 April 2007, at the latest. I do not think this amendment runs counter to the aim of the Commission’s proposal. It will facilitate monitoring of the implementation of the time change without undermining the principle.

At the end of the day we cannot but welcome the Commission’s proposal to make the change to summer time a permanent instrument of European policy by finally establishing the summer time arrangements for an unlimited period.

  Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, once again I see that a far-reaching debate is raging about the pros and cons of summer time. In the main, this is, as I see it, more of a philosophical discussion than a serious debate about a real policy of substance. I do not therefore think that we should dwell on this matter for too long in this House; after all the Member States and also the public have already accepted the summer time arrangements to a large extent and they are acknowledged to be part of our calendar. We should, therefore, really not rack our brains over this any longer.

In-depth research, as has also been called for in various quarters, would therefore in my opinion also be a waste of time and money. Surely we have, as I see it, much more serious problems to cope with in Europe, such as the transport situation, enlargement and, at this very moment, BSE.

It is also obvious that there has to be agreement across the EU on when the clocks are changed because anything else – as has already been said – would lead to hopeless confusion. I also think that the public would rightly question the point or otherwise of much EU legislation.

From the point of view of farmers – this has also already been said – repeatedly switching between summer and winter time is not exactly ideal for our farms, either as far as the animals are concerned or the actual work on the farm. Nevertheless, I will say quite openly that there are more advantages than disadvantages in favour of changing the clocks and in favour of keeping the summer time arrangements as they currently stand.

We should leave the arrangements as they are and in my opinion prolong them indefinitely.

Consequently, I can say on behalf of my group that we do not wish to accept any amendments. I have said this because I and my group are convinced that Europe has more serious problems and tasks to deal with. Summer time is not the problem for our common European House.

  Pohjamo (ELDR). – (FI) Madam President, since the 1970s various Member States have applied the practice of switching to summer time. The dates for starting and ending summer time were harmonised, finally, a few years ago so that they have been the same in all the Member States of the EU since 1996. We have become used to the practice, as the previous speaker just said. The proposal that has now been made is, in the opinion of our group, a good one, and our group supports it, and no more amendments to it are needed. The main issue here is that summer time is applied in all Member States and that the date it starts and the date it ends remain uniform throughout the EU. It is to be welcomed that the proposal states that matters connected with time zones and summer time provisions should be matters for Member States to decide. Harmonisation is necessary only in connection with the practice of summer time starting and ending at the same time in each of the Member States.

A harmonised summer time will remove obstacles to the free movement of goods, services and people and promote the more effective realisation of the internal market. Studies on the effects of summer time do not clearly reveal whether the effects, for example on agriculture, are positive or negative. The greatest concerns are mainly to do with the welfare of animals and the working conditions of farmers. The adoption of summer time has meant energy savings, even if they have only been very slight, according to reports. Studies show that traffic safety has improved with the evenings staying light for longer. Long, light evenings also mean opportunities for extended leisure time.

  Berend (PPE-DE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is now to be enshrined in law that summer time, which without a doubt has proved its worth, will begin on the last Sunday in March and end on the last Sunday in October throughout Europe. These provisions are contained in the Commission proposal on summer time arrangements. In addition, for the first time the directive is to remain in force indefinitely. This is necessary and good. The Commission is simply required to report on the impact of the directive after five years. It is absolutely essential to the smooth functioning of European industry, particularly in the fields of transport, communication, tourism and IT, that it have a stable and long-term framework in which to plan. Countless statements from industrial sectors show that this long-term stability of summer time dates is urgently necessary for the harmonious functioning of the internal market. For economic and social reasons it is simply imperative that the summer time arrangements are clear, comprehensible and long-term, so that people can plan ahead and do not need to worry that one day this policy will suddenly be reversed.

The amendments which have been tabled by Parliament and the rapporteur are therefore, in my opinion, unhelpful, because they tend to create uncertainty rather than increase confidence.

A one-off review by the Commission in five years' time will suffice. I would therefore urge Members to adopt the same stance in Parliament as was adopted in the Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, namely to confirm the Commission proposal as it stands and thus reject the amendments.

  Vatanen (PPE-DE). – (FI) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as the darkest time of the year approaches it is heartening to speak of summer, or even summer time. However, I would like to focus attention on this ritual of changing the clocks every spring and autumn, the purpose of which may be controversial. Farmers have told me that the welfare of dairy cattle is a priority, and their protection is also important for milk production. The peace of mind of ruminants is already being disturbed by mad cow disease. Additional stress should not now be caused them through having them deviate from their normal rhythm. Cows do not adjust to a change of rhythm in the space of just a day or two. It also causes problems for agriculture when during autumn threshing the morning dew ought to have disappeared according to the time by the clock, but, wonder of wonders, nature has not been following the directive. An additional problem is that not only is the natural rhythm of animals disturbed, but people’s alertness, which is partly dependent on daylight, is also affected.

I think that the Commission’s arguments in its communication in favour of the necessity of summer time are by no means watertight. In my opinion, whether or not the arrangement is continued should therefore be re-examined as soon as possible. It is also questionable as to whether summer time should end just before November. In snow-white Northern Europe the memory of summer has already cooled by then. It would be reasonable to end summer time at the end of September, approximately six months after it starts.

I am by no means totally opposed to summer time, as it also has its advantages. Nevertheless, I would ask the Commission to deliver a critical assessment of whether summer time is necessary in the future. I certainly believe that we could get along without it, although I am not prepared to give up the warm summer weather. But that is something politicians fortunately cannot make decisions about.

  Byrne, Commission. – Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal we are discussing today is intended to extend the existing arrangements concerning the dates and times when the summer time period begins and ends, that is, on the last Sunday in March and the last Sunday in October at 1 o' clock in the morning Greenwich Mean Time.

Allow me, first of all, to congratulate your rapporteur, Mrs Honeyball, for her excellent work and the report she has produced. You will have noted that, compared with the earlier directives the arrangements proposed are of indefinite duration. The study ordered by the Commission in 1999, in accordance with the commitment it gave to the Council and European Parliament when the eighth directive was adopted, concludes that the arrangements are widely accepted both by the public and by the various sectors of activity.

However, it has become apparent that adopting the arrangements for a comparatively short period could cause difficulties for certain sectors. For example, the transport sector in particular, but also other sectors of industry, requires stable, long-term planning on account of technical requirements connected with the preparation of transport timetables. There are also the requirements of manufacturers of computers or electronic tachographs and producers of calendars and diaries. Last but not least, the time-consuming and expensive repetition of legislative procedures at fairly close intervals at both Community and national level should be avoided.

While these are all reasons militating in favour of adopting open-ended arrangements, as a precaution the Commission has made provision for drawing up, no later than five years after the first year of application of the directive, a report based on information supplied by each Member State. On this point I am pleased to note that the Commission's proposal has been favourably received by the European Parliament.

As regards the amendments tabled, the Commission can agree to Amendments Nos 3 and 4 since they aim at making the system more transparent and emphasise the precautionary principle. As regards Amendment No 1, the Commission cannot accept the part of the amendment which obliges it to make a periodic report every five years, nor the reference to the enlargement process. It can agree to make appropriate proposals on the basis of the conclusions of the report of 2007 referred to in Article 5.

Concerning Amendment No 2 to Recital 6a, the Commission cannot accept it for two reasons: on the one hand the scope of the investigations should not be restricted to a few requirements, and on the other hand, the proposed amendment to Recital 6a does not relate to a specific article of the directive. Nevertheless, I would like to allay your concerns by saying that the Commission will of course instruct the Member States in good time, so that they can send in all necessary information and data related to the various sectors concerned by the issue.

By way of conclusion, I look forward to a rapid adoption of the proposed directive to ensure that no difficulties are encountered in the sectors concerned.

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12.30 p.m.