Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jul 1971

Vol. 255 No. 5

Standard Time (Amendment) Bill, 1971: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. O'Malley)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of the Bill is to provide a definite period each year during which the time for general purposes will be Greenwich mean time. During the remainder of the year the time will continue to be standard time, i.e. one hour in advance of Greenwich mean time.

The period provided in the Bill during which the time will be Greenwich mean time is the period from the Sunday following the fourth Saturday in October to the Sunday following the third Saturday in March, or if that is Easter Sunday, the Sunday following the second Saturday in March. In the present year, however, it is proposed to change to Greenwich mean time on 31st October, which is the Sunday following the fifth Saturday in that month. Provision is being made to enable the Minister for Justice by order, requiring a resolution of approval by both Houses of the Oireachtas, to vary the period either generally or for a specified year or for specified years or to prescribe that there shall be no period of winter time either generally or in a specified year or specified years.

As Deputies will be aware, up to the enactment of the Standard Time Act, 1968, Greenwich mean time was standard time but, under the Summer Time Act, 1925, there was a period each year during which the clock was advanced. The Standard Time Act, 1968, provided, in effect, "summer time all the year round". What this Bill proposes is, in effect, that we should revert to the position that obtained up to the enactment of the 1968 Act. The period specified in the Bill during which Greenwich mean time is to be in force corresponds closely to the period during which Greenwich mean time was in force in the year 1961 to 1967, inclusive.

When the British decision to revert to Greenwich mean time for part of the year had been taken, bodies and organisations that might have an interest in the matter were consulted by my Department as to whether the law should be changed to permit of this country's synchronising with Britain, and the public were invited to express their views also. The great majority of the bodies and organisations that were consulted, which included the major State-sponsored bodies, were in favour of our preserving parity with Britain. Slightly more than 300 private persons gave their views on the matter in letters to my Department. There was a fairly even balance as between those in favour of and those against a change to preserve parity with Britain, slightly more than half being in favour. The Government are satisfied that the weight of representative opinion is in favour of our keeping in line with Britain.

The whole question of the time system for this country was examined by the Summer Time Committee who submitted their report in 1941. Their conclusion was that, if factors of purely domestic or internal significance only were taken into account, the period of the year during which the time should be advanced by one hour should run from the first Sunday in April to the first Sunday in November. This corresponds closely with the position that will obtain if the Bill is passed. The committee went on to stress another factor they considered of great importance, namely, the desirability in the interests of interState transport, postal, telegraph and telephone communications of preserving uniformity of time with Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is of historical interest that three of the five members of the committee were in favour of standard time in this country being half an hour behind Greenwich mean time but this recommendation was never acted on.

The only novel aspect of the Bill is the proposal that the period of the year during which Greenwich mean time will obtain be designated the period of winter time. The period in question, as provided in the Bill, is substantially less than the period of the year during which "Greenwich mean time plus one hour" will obtain and, consequently, the argument is in favour of continuing to maintain "Greenwich mean time plus one hour" as standard time: it is, incidentally, the standard time in Western Europe generally. The corresponding British position is different in that they will have Greenwich mean time as standard time and "Greenwich mean time plus one hour" as summer time. The change in their law, however, comes about by the automatic revival of the older legislation. The original period of summer time, as provided in the Summer Time Act, 1925, was of about five months duration. The period of summer time that obtained here in the years 1961 to 1967, on the other hand, extended over more than seven months, while standard time, anomalously, obtained during less than five months. Unlike the British we have to have fresh legislation and, that being so, the logical thing to do is what is proposed in the Bill, namely, to call the shorter period the period of winter time.

This is a non-contentious measure which, I am satisfied, has the support of representative public opinion and, on that basis, I commend it to the House.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The effect of this Bill is to repeal an Act passed in this House in 1968. On that occasion we followed the action taken by Great Britain and decided to have standard summer time here all the year round; in other words, we decided to go one hour ahead of Greenwich mean time throughout the winter. We did that, as the Minister said when introducing the Bill, because, among other reasons, Great Britain was doing it at that time. All the arguments, or at least a lot of those put forward at the time—I can quote the former Minister for Justice, Deputy Moran, speaking in the Seanad — were that it was desirable we should keep in line with Western European countries. The former Minister said, and I quote from column 839 of the Seanad debates:

In view, however, of the great and growing intercourse, commercial and otherwise, between this country and our close neighbours in Europe, the advantages of having a common system of time are obvious.

On that occasion the emphasis was heavily on not keeping in line with Great Britain but very heavily on keeping in line with Western Europe. We were then told that we were developing a great and increasing volume of trade with Western European countries.

It seems to me that if it were desirable to fall in line with Western European countries in 1968, in view of the move towards the Common Market and our imminent entry thereto, there seems to be a far sounder and more convincing argument for keeping in close touch with Western Europe now than in 1968. The Minister in introducing the Bill today seemed to lay the emphasis on keeping in touch with Britain. The fact of the matter is that whatever Britain does we do. Great Britain introduced this measure in 1968 and we at that time could not even wait to see how the change would operate there, to see whether the people there would be satisfied with it or whether it would have disadvantages. We followed the example straight away.

It was a great pity at that time that we did not take our time, so to speak, that we did not wait to see how this change to standard time all the year round would operate in Britain. We decided we would do it immediately to be in line. There were arguments for and against it in 1968. Parents of school children feared it was not in the interests of the children that they should be asked to go out in the dark in the morning. That argument was echoed here in the House and the Minister at the time said that if it turned out there were grave objections by parents we could have a little change in the school hours, but we know that despite efforts to get the school hours changed they were not changed.

One significant factor is that in so far as accidents are concerned the change over to summer time in the winter did not lead to an increase in the accident rate during the hours of darkness in the mornings. In an October, 1969 publication, An Foras Forbartha stated:

The results of the analysis of traffic accidents do not indicate that the change to standard time has had a detrimental effect on traffic accident occurence, at least during the period 1st January to 17th February, 1969. On the contrary, there is evidence that the changeover has had a beneficial effect.

On page 15 the publication states:

There is no evidence to suggest that the number of child casualties increased as a result of the change to standard time. Children killed or injured on their way to school would have been reflected in the figures at Table IV for the period 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. These figures show a decrease in casualties from 19 in the period before to 11 in the period after.

It is probably fair to say that following the introduction of standard time in winter in 1969 more precautions are taken by parents. Children were encouraged to be more careful and they wore illuminated arm bands and all that sort of thing.

Before I say a few words in detail on the Bill I should like to say it is a pity we rushed into this change in 1968, that we did not wait, have patience, that we did not let the British act the guinea pig for once. The result is that we followed them slavishly and accepted their opinion on that matter and now we see ourselves in the absurd position of coming back here and following Great Britain again at a time when it would appear there is a stronger argument for synchronising with Western European countries. Having said that, I believe parents of school children throughout the country will welcome this change back to pre-1968 and I also believe that from the farming point of view the old system is more suitable to agricultural activities throughout the country, though it is strange that many of the arguments and complaints which we heard in 1968-69 have ceased to be made. People seem to have fallen into line and to have put up with it. I think the whole thing can be summarised by another quotation from the former Minister in the Seanad on 27th June, 1968, at column 850. He was asked whether the ICMSA were in favour of the change at that time and he said:

They are not against it. I can assure the House this Bill was fully considered by every Government Department and all came down on the side of the Bill. Indeed the suggestion is that we largely have no choice from the economic point of view except to make the change.

I think it is obvious from the fact that we introduced the Bill in 1968 and made all the arguments in the world for going ahead of Greenwich mean time in the winter, and saying then that all the arguments were in favour of the change, and that we are coming back here now and undoing all we said and did in 1968 and saying now that all the arguments are in favour of going back, simply means we have no choice, that we are guided here and regulated here by British public opinion. British public opinion brought about the change here in 1968 and apparently British public opinion is forcing us to change back now.

One argument—and I do not think it has been made here—which is in favour of synchronising our time with that of Great Britain is that if we are to have a different time, if we are to be one hour ahead of them, we will also be one hour ahead of Northern Ireland. It is undesirable that there should be one more barrier between the two parts of the country. If we were one hour ahead of the time in Fermanagh that would be another thing which would be highlighting the division in this country and driving us apart and identifying the two parts of the country as being separate and apart from each other. Whatever we do to remove barriers and differences we should not do anything to establish other barriers. As I say, it is a tragic bit of comedy, if you like, that we should be changing back so quickly after the 1968 decision. I do not propose to oppose the Bill.

Mr. M. O'Leary

One can only pity the civil servant who had to draw up the Minister's speech.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is the same speech as the last time with different figures.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I hope that some unfortunate Minister for Justice may not be in the same position again in three or four years time. If British public opinion switches back presumably we will have another speech from some poor unfortunate person in that Department after he has racked his brains to get another twist on the well-known theme.

I had hoped that in his explanation the Minister would at least have given us a breakdown on whatever reaction he had from the public when he was bringing in this Bill to tidy up the position and, as he said, to synchronise with the British position. He said: "Slightly more than 300 private persons gave their views on the matter in letters to my Department." I would have been pleased if the Minister had obliged the House by letting us know what was the breakdown between city and country in the views expressed in those 300 letters.

Like other Deputies I have no objection to what the Minister is now proposing but he could have taken this opportunity to let us know at least what kind of reaction there was from the public. He could have given us more information on whatever contacts he had with the public so that we could have been a little more enlightened as to the feeling of the public on this matter. I would have liked him to name the trade organisations, the farmers' organisations and the trade unions which gave their points of view on this matter. Did trade unions contact the Minister to tell him how they considered industrial workers would be affected by the switch back or whether it would have any effect?

I should also like to have heard from the Minister this morning exactly what it cost us over the past few years in the provision of arm bands and so on. We had tremendous publicity and propaganda campaigns on the necessity for providing arm bands for the protection of school children who had to go out early in the morning. It would have been interesting to know if any figure had been arrived at for the expenditure involved in keeping in step with the British on a previous occasion. If we have a Minister for Justice who must follow in most repects what British legislation suggests in many areas—and this is the position in relation to much of our legislation—it is a pity that he must strike out on his own in areas like the Forcible Entry Bill and other pieces of coercive legislation for which he has apparently a unique fondness. However, this does not arise here.

We accept what the Minister proposes with the reservation that since he had to go to the trouble of coming back to the House for this legislation it is a pity that he did not give us more information on which sections of the public were contacted and what the breakdown was. Were there any suggestions made or issues arising under this Bill? It would have been interesting if he had availed of the opportunity here this morning to give the House more information on those matters.

Dr. FitzGerald

This legislation is nonsense legislation. We are making fools of ourselves by this process of following slavishly—and that is the only adverb one can use—British legislation year in and year out, backwards and forwards. Regardless of what the British do we follow them in an identical manner. This is a new phenomenon in this country. Before we got our independence we did not feel it necessary to follow the British in this way. Until the end of 1916 this country had its own time which was not a convenient hour of difference from that of the United Kingdom but 25 minutes. That was the difference in real time, in sun time, for the city of Dublin, the capital of the country. If before we achieved our independence, when we were an integral part legislatively and administratively of the United Kingdom, we could have our own time different by such an inconvenient amount as 25 minutes from British time, why now that we are allegedly independent must we follow British practice year in year out, backwards and forwards? Why can we not tolerate any difference?

The Minister has told us as his predecessor told us when he initiated this shuttlecock movement of our time in sympathy with British time that we have to keep in line with Britain. In fact, the phrase used was quoted by a previous speaker; we had no choice economically in that matter. He said that largely we "had no choice from the economic point of view except to make the change". That is the slavish attitude of Fianna Fáil Ministers to anything that has to do with our relationship with Britain. Why have we no economic choice? Why had we an economic choice before independence? Why did we have an economic choice during the war when for periods we did not follow Britain in her changes of time? Why have we now no economic choice? Is this the result of Fianna Fáil rule? Why is it that a country like Italy, a member of the Common Market, has an economic choice while we outside the Community with the political independence which we are supposed to enjoy are not free to have our own time, when that time suits our own need?

The degree of ignorance on this subject on the part of Ministers was demonstrated abysmally in the Seanad in 1968 when the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Ó Moráin, had the nerve to state quite untruthfully—he did not intend not to tell the truth; he simply was ignorant—that all western European countries had the same time. Of course he was misinformed. I shall quote from column 851 of the Official Report of the Seanad Debates, volume 65.

Mr. M. O'Leary

That confusion led to some mistakes in Vienna.

Dr. FitzGerald

I did not understand that that was the reason.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Lack of synchronisation.

Dr. FitzGerald

"When this Bill is passed," said the Minister, as he then was, "we will have it also"— that is, Central European Time. "Iceland will be the only odd-man-out in the whole of Western Europe." I intervened to ask:

Is the Minister not aware that Italy has departed from this and introduced a different time from nearby countries last summer? In view of that how can he suggest that uniformity is imperative from the point of view of communications?

Mr. Moran: Italy and all these other countries have the same standard time as that proposed in this Bill.

There was a long controversy between us ending with the Minister saying with a meekness unusual in that particular Minister:

I will make inquiries as to that.

He did not know. He had not been told by his civil servants and was not well enough informed himself to know that Italy had in the previous year introduced its own summer time. This was not only a difference of adding a further hour but, for a period, a difference in the period during which the time changed in other countries, running from May to September instead of from March to October. It is that level of ignorance that informs the legislation coming before this House.

We are now told we must change back again. The truth is the Government made fools of themselves in changing in 1968. They were told it was an experimental period in Britain and the then Minister for Justice was aware of that because he said in the Dáil at column 1628 of volume 235 of the Official Report:

I should point out that a Government amendment to the British Bill proposes that it should run initially for a period of three years only.

The Government knew it was experimental. Yet, they felt we could not even be different from Britain for a year or two because it would be such a terrible economic tragedy in the state of political dependence into which this Government have got us 50 years after the Treaty. Of course, what the Government should have done was to wait and see rather than make this change, unless the change was thought to be desirable in its own right. When one reads the speeches of the Minister in these two debates in the Dáil and Seanad there is no suggestion that this was the right thing to do because it suited the needs of the country. Oh, no. This was what Britain was doing. The Minister argued it was right for this country to go one way in 1968 and it is right now to go the other way in 1971 because Britain is going the other way. We have no economic choice. We must do the same as Britain. Good or bad, we must follow Britain. That is the policy. Whether it is the right thing or the wrong thing has nothing to do with it. One would have thought that the question of whether it was the right thing or the wrong thing to do would have been the relevant approach to adopt in our own Parliament.

We are now going to change back again. In 1968, Deputy Ó Moráin was very concerned about our relations with Europe. That was a period during which we were not very active about going into the EEC. The EEC issue was dormant at the time but, even at a period when this was not an active issue, Deputy Ó Moráin, a great European, of course, said at column 839, Volume 65, of the Official Report of the Seanad:

In view, however, of the great and growing intercourse, commercial and otherwise, between this country and our close neighbours, in Europe, the advantages of having a common system of time are obvious

Now, that we are going into the EEC, we are going to have a different time from the majority of the countries in Europe with which we had such close intercourse in 1968. Where is the logic in that?

Moreover, the Minister for Justice has not referred to the impact of this change on accidents. I am not quite sure why the Minister for Justice handles this Bill, but I would have thought that his prime concern would have been with the question of accidents. He is the Minister responsible for the Garda Síochána, the men who are involved in the whole business of accident control and prevention. I would have thought he would have told us the effect this is likely to have on accidents. There is good reason why he did not tell us because the evidence is that the effect will be adverse. The Minister has nothing to say about how this adverse situation will be remedied. An Foras Forbartha carried out an investigation after the introduction of the 1968 Bill and provided figures for two comparable periods between January and mid-February, before and after the 1968 Bill. These figures showed very significant changes in accidents occurring, changes involving a significant reduction in accidents. They were referred to by Deputy Fitzpatrick (Cavan). I will give the exact figures.

The two periods chosen were 7 to 10 a.m. and 4 to 7 p.m., two periods affected by the change in time. A comparison was made between the accident rate in these two periods and the accident rate in the other 18 hours. If we take the figures for the morning and evening period there was a reduction from 291 to 215 in the number of fatal and personal injury accidents. In the 18 hours there was virtually no change—a slight increase from 521 to 530. This suggests that, as a result of the change in time, there was a reduction in accidents from a figure of about 300 on the basis of what happened in the rest of the day; that figure was reduced to 215, a reduction of 85, or almost 30 per cent, in the number of accidents. In the morning period there was a reduction from 95 to 81, a 15 per cent reduction. In the evening period there was a reduction from 196 to 134, a 32 per cent reduction. These figures are significant. The degree of confidence in the figure is 99 per cent upwards, which is a very high confidence limit indeed for any statistical comparison of this kind.

The figures for child accidents—these are not figures for children going to school because they are not broken down in that way; the actual number is statistically small, though humanly and tragically large—cannot be regarded with the same degree of statistical confidence but, nonetheless, I will give them because they confirm the trend indicated. In the morning period the number of accidents was reduced from 19 to 11, despite the fact that conditions were more hazardous but, because of the effectiveness of the preventive measures taken, children wearing arm bands and so on, there was an actual reduction and the Government are to be congratulated on having taken such effective preventive measures. In the evening period accidents fell from 49 to 35. In the other 18 hours there was a small drop of 9 per cent, 80 to 73. Had that small reduction applied in the morning and evening periods the number of accidents would have been 58. It was actually 46. There was a significant reduction here; I should not say "significant" because that has a statistical meaning. There was a reduction much greater than that which occurred in the other periods of the day, not big enough to be statistically significant but indicative of the trend and in line with the general trend in accidents over those periods. It seems to me, therefore, that the legislation introduced, despite the fears mentioned, in 1968, had the effect of reducing the accident rate significantly.

I would like to hear now from the Minister what he proposes to do to deal with the very serious situation which will be created by this Bill, reverting to conditions involving darkness earlier in the evening when people are tired and more accident prone, to try to ensure that accidents do not rise sharply to the level at which they were before the 1968 Bill was introduced. If the Minister feels it is economically imperative that we should follow Britain backwards and forwards, then he has a duty to take steps to prevent an increase in accidents which, on the figures involved in a six-week period alone, could result in an increase of something like 85 casualties. The Minister has a duty to take some action to prevent these. If, in six weeks, 85 extra casualties could result, then over the whole winter period we would have several hundreds extra killed or injured on the basis of these figures, because that was the reduction in people killed and injured following the introduction of the 1968 legislation. What steps will the Minister take to prevent the restoration of the pre-1968 basis, leading to restoration as regards time and as regards accidents involving several hundreds more killed and injured? I emphasise we are talking here of figures which involve such a large change in a figure, which is itself significant, that the figures have a very high confidence limit. It is well over 100 to 1 that this reduction in accidents was attributable to the change in time. That is what these figures mean. Given that kind of situation the Minister has a duty to the House and to the people to say what he will do, if he is going to push this Bill through, to ensure it will not result in the kind of holocaust these figures would indicate.

One curious feature of the Minister's introductory speech is the way in which the speech follows so closely the previous speech. I do not recall any precedent for a Minister making two speeches on opposite things and using exactly the same format and language in both cases. The two speeches are textually the same speech with the figures reversed. I will show this paragraph by paragraph. This is an unusual method of writing speeches. The same speech does and one merely substitutes the opposite figures to say the opposite thing. At column 1628 of volume 235 of the Official Report the Minister for Justice said:

The views of interested organisations and individuals on this subject were invited several months ago when the British decision was known.

The wording is played around with a little this time and a certain imagination is shown in the order of the words. The reference to the British decision comes at the beginning of the sentence this time and I quote:

When the British decision to revert to Greenwich mean time for part of the year had been taken, bodies and organisations...

It was "organisations and individuals" last time.

... that might have an interest in the matter were consulted by my Department as to whether the law should be changed to permit of this country's synchronising with Britain, and the public were invited to express their views also.

The next sentence in 1968 was:

The vast majority of the organisations, which included industrial and employers' organisations, chambers of commerce and semi-State bodies, were in favour of the adoption of the same system of time as Britain and Western Europe.

This time the majority has changed from being "vast" to being "great":

The great majority of the bodies and organisations that were consulted, which included the major State-sponsored bodies...

They seem to feature in both, they are the most important.

... were in favour of our preserving parity with Britain.

In 1968 we were told:

About 130 letters were received from individuals, of which about 70 were in favour of the European system.

This time the Minister states:

Slightly more than 300 private persons gave their views on the matter in letters to my Department. There was a fairly even balance as between those in favour of and those against a change to preserve parity with Britain, slightly more than half being in favour.

Whatever the proposition there is always slightly more than half in favour if it is a Fianna Fáil proposition except when there is a referendum when it is slightly less than half. In 1968 the Minister said:

In the circumstances, it seems fair to deduce that the weight of opinion is in favour of the Bill.

This time the Minister said:

The Government are satisfied that the weight of representative opinion...

It is not just "opinion" this time, it is "representative opinion".

... is in favour of our keeping in line with Britain.

As one goes through one can see the phraseology is the same throughout. The last sentence in the Minister's Seanad speech last time is almost identical with the Minister's last sentence this time. The Minister said today:

This is a non-contentious measure which, I am satisfied, has the support of representative public opinion...

In the Seanad in 1968 the then Minister said:

I trust the Seanad will accept this Bill as a progressive and non-controversial measure...

In the Dáil he said:

I commend this Bill to the House as a reasonable measure, taken after public opinion has been tested, and as one which has no Party or political significance.

This is a case of basically the same speech with a variation in language and different figures substituted to mean the opposite. It is a curious way to legislate but it comes from the mentality of doing precisely what the British do, when they do it, without a moment's delay. If that is the attitude of the Government I do not know what the point of having a separate Government is. I understand the purpose of our getting a separate Government in 1921 was to run our own affairs in our own way but in this as in so many other matters such as decimalisation we have to follow Britain slavishly. The British took a decision to stick to the £ and this was regarded by responsible opinion everywhere as a foolish decision dictated by considerations of national prestige because it was a unit so large that the one-hundredth fraction of it is much too big a unit for pricing purposes. In fact, most countries in Europe have units one-tenth that size as a unit for pricing purposes and, in fact, prices on the Continent are measured in terms of these units so that they can be fairly priced by the equivalent of one-tenth of the new Irish penny. This much greater precision in pricing keeps prices down and encourages competition. The British wanted to stick to their sterling £; we had to follow suit because we could not differ from Britain even one iota. On that occasion we could not even have a different decimal point; we could not even have one thousand milles in the £ instead of the one hundred cents, we could not even have a £ which would be one-tenth of the British £. A decimal point is even too much for this Government when it comes to differentiating us in any respect from Britain.

It is difficult to know what more one can say about this legislation. This legislation cannot be justified in 1968 and again today. One is entitled to feel that one Bill or the other was right. I suppose most of us have a vague preference between the two but to contend that both Bills are right and to contend to that effect by using the same language, the same representations and the same groups of people, always with the bare majority in favour of what the Minister has said, is not the way to legislate in an independent country.

Mr. P.J. Burke

There is a very old and true saying that it is a very wise man who would change his mind on greater enlightenment. The Minister has changed his mind on greater enlightenment.

Dr. FitzGerald

Where has the enlightenment come from—London, as usual?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I did not interrupt the honourable Deputy when he was speaking.

Dr. FitzGerald

I apologise.

Mr. P.J. Burke

This enlightenment came from the fathers and mothers. Parents made representations to me about their children having to go to school in the dark mornings and they wanted the time changed back. The only case that Deputy FitzGerald made was that we were following Britain, but we are not following Britain. As we are entering the EEC in the near future we should be able to co-operate with friendly countries and countries near to us. This does not, however, come into it. As a result of all the representations which the Minister and I have received on behalf of young children, the Minister has changed this legislation.

Having seen young children in Santry, where I live, trying to cross busy roads on dark mornings I welcome this change. The Minister should not mind what Deputy FitzGerald said about our following the British. I would not like Ministers to take the view that what they and their predecessors have done cannot be changed. I always feel democracy is working properly when a Minister announces that he is going to amend legislation passed last year or a few years back. Changing one's mind on greater enlightenment is democracy in action. I am deeply concerned with youngsters going to school in the morning. I do not want to see anything happen to any child in the morning.

Mr. Ryan

The figures are against the Deputy. There are more children alive today because of the change made in 1968.

Mr. O'Malley

Because of the measures taken in spite of the change.

Dr. O'Donovan

It may have nothing at all to do with it. The whole argument is nonsensical.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy is making a speech in favour of the Bill, which is more than the Minister did. There is no reference to children in the Minister's speech, just Britain.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am making a speech on behalf of the children whose parents made representations to me. I am voicing the opinion of a number of families in both the city and county of Dublin. I suppose I am relegated to North Dublin now. I used to have all County Dublin but times change and we have to change with them.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Government tried to follow Britain in that, too, but the people said "No".

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Deputies on the other side of the House were the first to follow Britain; anything Britain wanted them to do they did but we stood up to Britain. Do not draw me on that. I am in a very pleasant mood this morning. The sun is shining. I would not like to go back on that.

Dr. O'Donovan

You made two efforts to follow Britain in that direction.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Do not ask me to say any more. You might bring me back to the past and I would not like that.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am in a pleasant mood too.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I live in Santry. The road there is very busy and there is an effort being made to have it bypassed. There is nothing about that in the Bill, so I shall refer to it only in passing. Many parents have come to me asking to have the hour changed so that children could go to school in daylight rather than in the dark. The citizens of tomorrow must be considered.

The suggestion seems to be that we should build a wall around this country and cut ourselves off from aeroplane traffic and everything else and go back to the Middle Ages. We are living in an enlightened age. We are only doing what every other country in the world is trying to do, that is, co-operating in certain matters. I shall not go into the international implications of this matter. I am just dealing with the case as I see it. I welcome the Bill because it will help school-going children. It is up to us to co-operate internationally in matters like this. It is about an hour's journey by plane from here to London. It would be very inconvenient to have a difference of one hour in the time as between here and Britain. We are entering the European Economic Community and we expect co-operation from all its members.

I refute the suggestion that has been made that we are following Britain in this matter. That is completely untrue. We are doing the sensible thing. Following and co-operating are two different things. The Bill will be welcomed by parents and children.

It has been suggested that accidents will occur as a result of this Bill. Accidents will always occur. The number of road accidents has been reduced considerably by the provision of crossings for children and wardens to look after children and various other means. We have to move with the times. I hope that if at any time the Minister feels it necessary to alter the decision he has made he will be big enough to do so. If he does that, he will go down in history as one of the greatest democrats.

Mr. Ryan

As a quick-change artist.

Dr. O'Donovan

The best ever.

Mr. P.J. Burke

When Deputy O'Donovan was on this side of the House he could not change his mind. When I was in Opposition and things were going badly with him I used to try to advise him as Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach.

Dr. O'Donovan

No, to the Government.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Taoiseach is the Government.

Dr. O'Donovan

Not exactly.

Mr. P.J. Burke

At that time he had a cure for all ills.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from standard time.

Mr. P.J. Burke

My apologies to you, a Cheann Comhairle. I shall not pursue that. I welcome this change.

Dr. O'Donovan

I must say that I agree a great deal more with what Deputy Fitzpatrick of Cavan said than I do with what the other two speakers since said. As it happened, I had a job to do involving a very large group of workers at the time the previous change was made, and on account of the utter impossibility of the situation which was brought about, how the Minister had the nerve at that time and still has the nerve to say that representative bodies at that time agreed with him, is beyond me.

I do not suppose there are many Deputies in the House who remember but we, in fact, at that time made out what the time was when the dawn rose and under the system that has been in operation in this country, in winter time in the last three years, the dawn came at 23 minutes past nine in the morning. One great industry, the building industry, changed their time of starting from 8 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. That was a kind of halfway house. They start all the year round now at 8.30 a.m. Certainly in the winter time from now on, with the dawn coming at 8.23 a.m., that will make for increased production compared with starting at 8 a.m., with the workers stumbling over the blocks of wood and the concrete blocks that are around building sites. So that I welcome this Bill very, very much.

Let me say something else—if I had had any say whatever in the last decision it would not have been taken, for a serious reason. Since I am older than most people in the House, perhaps, they do not remember but, when the base and brutal British were here, as they were called, every post office in this country showed two times—Irish time and Greenwich time. Dublin time was 20 minutes behind Greenwich mean time. For the bulk of the country there is half an hour by the sun difference between their time and Greenwich mean time. I am talking of this problem for an age since we spent so much effort on it. During the war years here we had during the winter months two hours summer time. I used to see the unfortunate children coming out in the grey dawn. I suppose Deputy Ryan was going to school then. I wonder does he remember the kind of conditions in which he had to come out.

Mr. Ryan

It did not affect me.

Dr. O'Donovan

Were you able to see?

Mr. Ryan

I was. We travelled to school on the tram and got there and back home without any trouble.

Dr. O'Donovan

You did not mind at all waiting in the grey darkness? Are not you a brave man, Deputy Ryan?

Mr. Ryan

There were no street lights either.

Dr. O'Donovan

I had great sympathy with the small children at the time every time I passed down on the tram from Terenure. Any suggestion that what was done three years ago made for any saving was just complete nonsense. It did one thing in connection with the ESB: it made for two peak periods in the day and that was a slight advantage from the point of view of power production but this was the only advantage in it. There was no daylight saving so to speak, because what you saved in the way of light in the evening you spent in the morning. So, it was all the same.

The idea that it was significant that we should have the same time as Great Britain is complete nonsense and the same can be said with regard to Northern Ireland. Let us take, for example, the United States of America where there are at least three different times. There is eastern standard time, mid-western standard time and western standard time. What happens there? As you move west when you arrive at a railway station and you see the time is different, you change your watch and forget about it.

We are now following the British in this Bill the same as we did in the 1968 Bill. They had the common sense to really get to grips with the problem. There was great controversy in the British newspapers about this. We have been told that the change resulted in fewer road deaths over the past few years. This could be due to entirely different reasons. It could be due to the fact that there was so much talk about it that drivers were more careful or it could be due to the fact that many people could control the time they came out in the morning and did not come out until later. Statistical comparisons of that sort are nonsensical and I have had to complain about them time and time again.

Deputy Burke said that we are now going into the EEC. What is the great case for going in? The case is that if Britain goes in what option have we? That is the same thing as saying we must follow Britain. Men in some industries go to work at 8 o'clock in the morning. In recent years during winter time in Dublin, to get the time by the sun you had to take one hour 20 minutes from 8 o'clock which meant that workers had to be at work at 6.40 a.m. If it took them 40 minutes to get to work it meant they had to leave their homes at 6 a.m. in the morning. Of all the absurd things ever done by the Fianna Fáil Party this was the most absurd and ridiculous.

From the point of view of school children there is no doubt that this Bill is to be welcomed. It is also an occasion for us to say what we think about people who change their minds. It took the Government three years to change their minds with regard to winter time. What about the concession given in income tax last year which is being taken away this year? That is one form of time manoeuvre that I do not approve of. The Government cannot make up their minds about anything. They introduce Bills and then withdraw them. They shuffle things backwards and forwards. The trouble about this is that it brings all politicians into disrepute. I do not like people who bring me into disrepute. However, I welcome this Bill very much.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister's speech in defence of this pathetic Bill is both contemptible and inaccurate. It is contemptible in that the considerations which apparently influenced him were those of the convenience of international travel. The realities of the Irish situation were apparently irrelevant.

Deputy Burke said he was glad the Minister changed his mind so quickly and he hoped he would be courageous and change his mind as often as he wanted. I forecast that if the pattern which dictates Irish time is what happens in England or elsewhere he will within the next five years be again asking this House to make a further variation in the time which should operate in Ireland. If Great Britain becomes a member of the EEC it is inevitable that she will be forced by the weight of opinion within that Community to conform to European standard time so, again, we will find ourselves marching arm in arm, step by step, thinking alike with Great Britain all the time and never having the guts, the courage and the intelligence to use the independence we are supposed to have.

I assert, without any hesitation, that the economic advantages would lie in favour of our having a different time from that which operates in Great Britain. Deputy O'Donovan has already referred to the advantages which came to the Electricity Supply Board as a result of the change in 1968 because it spread the peak load of electricity. That was a very significant advantage even within our own twenty-six county State. It has a further advantage for all Ireland because it enables the Electricity Supply Board here and the Northern Ireland Electricity Supply Board to exchange supplies of electricity at times of varying peaks and valley requirements in the two jurisdictions. In fact, we avoid the necessity of considerable capital expenditure for electricity production by having a different time in the two jurisdictions.

I sympathise with all that has been said about the undesirability of having different times and the social disadvantages it may have but let us not forget the considerable economic advantages which flow by having this difference in time. The telephone system of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is becoming daily chronically incapable of handling the load of traffic which is presented to it. A variation in time between ourselves and Britain enables the spread of this load and enables the overcrowded telephone exchanges to operate over a longer period of the day with lower peaks. Of course, this is something we must not even think about, we must not consider, because Great Britain has decided what needs to be done and we must follow suit without regard to the benefits which may flow to us by having a variation in time.

It is, of course, correct to allow for the increased awareness on the part of road users in recent years and to give some credit for the improvement in the accident rate to arm bands, the fact that public lighting is now maintained on the streets until daylight and so on. When we allow for all these things how can we be so callous as to ignore the fact that An Foras Forbartha were engaged to carry out a detailed examination of the consequences of changing our time in 1968? An Foras Forbartha consulted with several bodies to ascertain what change had taken place and if a change had taken place to what it was attributable. The consequences of all that, as Deputy FitzGerald said this morning, was a reduction of 85 accidents in six weeks. If the report of An Foras Forbartha is a valid one, —I assume that the Government accept it as being a valid report— there is now a real possibility that because of our inability to think for ourselves and to act according to our own requirements, independent of what Westminster may decide, an additional 300 people will be killed or maimed on our roads because we have not the sense to make our own decisions.

Deputy Burke said that we should co-operate with friendly nations. Did Britain consult with Ireland before deciding to change her legislation? I am sure she did not. Was there any consultation on this matter between the British Home Office and ourselves or between the British transport companies and our transport companies? Not at all. Little Ireland is never thought of when Britain is making up her own mind. There is no reason why Britain should consult us on such matters. She is a sovereign and independent nation. What is the use talking about co-operation when there is no attempt on the part of Britain either to co-operate or to consult with us? That is the reality of the situation. Britain makes decisions in keeping with her own requirements, dictated to a large extent by the desire of the Tories in north-west Scotland to placate people there who were disturbed emotionally but who had not the wit to make a study of the facts of the situation that would have justified the change made in 1968, or justified its continuation.

In all our urban environments we find that public transport and the movement of traffic generally is hampered considerably in darkness as against daylight. This is becoming an increasingly serious social problem as well as creating economic disadvantages for our city people and for our industries. One would think that a Government concerned with this problem would be anxious to ensure that traffic moved in daylight in so far as possible. Apart from people going to work at peak times in the mornings, the change in 1968 enabled traffic at the time of greatest congestion to move in daylight for a longer period of the year. This is a valid and serious consideration but, like the other considerations that we have mentioned from these benches this morning, they have not been even touched on in the Minister's speech. These are the kind of considerations that should have been debated, which should have been considered and which should have been the determining factor instead of the determining factor being the convenience of Aer Lingus or the shipping companies who, in any event, publish timetables for different times of the year and who would be in no great difficulty in the event of having to print a note on their timetables to the effect that allowances should be made for variations in time.

It is suggested that it is now more important to keep in step with Britain rather than to keep in step with western Europe. As Deputy O'Donovan pointed out, this is in conflict with what the Government are urging in connection with our application for EEC membership. One would have thought that at a time when we wish to indicate how European we are and how much our practices are in keeping with Europe, we would not have followed slavishly the British example. Like many of my colleagues, I find myself unable to support this Bill because it is not dictated by Irish requirements. It has been introduced because of a decision taken in an entirely different situation.

Deputy Burke once again took the baby in his arms this morning. This is his usual stand. If he does not do that, he is collecting sixpences in a tin box on O'Connell Bridge. He is either taking the baby in his arms or he has the widow on his arm. Some of us can speak here as parents of school-going children who leave home in the darkness to go to school. The children are none the worse for this. Apparently Deputy O'Donovan was concerned for me and for colleagues of my generation who during the last war went to school for a longer period of the year when there were more hours of darkness than there are under the existing system. We were none the worse for that although I realise that there was not then as much traffic on the roads as there is now.

There is much emotion involved in the sight of a child going out to school in the darkness of the morning but there seems to be very little concern for the child coming home in the darkness of the evening when the roads are crowded with vehicles being driven by people who are tired after their day's work. Neither is there any concern shown for children who, if we are to revert to the old system, will come home from school at the end of a weary day and, after having a meal, are unable to go out to play even for half an hour because of the darkness. The system we have operated during the past three years enabled children to go out to play in the evenings. We are all aware of the annoyances caused by the change of 1968. Workers and managers complained about work commencing in the darkness. Has any effort been made to ascertain what these managers and workers think now? My own experience has been that most of them are glad of the change that was made at that time. Admittedly in most cases it was decided to begin work at 8 a.m. instead of 8.30 a.m. but the workers can avail of some remaining daylight after they have finished their day's work. Are these benefits not worth retaining? I think they are and on that account, too, I find myself unable to support the Bill.

Deputy O'Donovan complained that the consequence of the 1968 legislation was that workers were in effect commencing work at 6.40 a.m. This is not unique. Workers across the world begin their day much earlier than that by their own sunrise or standard time. There is nothing wrong with beginning work early. If we are to meet the challenges that await us in Europe and if we are to avail ourselves of the opportunities that will present themselves to us in Europe, we shall have to be out in the early hours of the morning. If we want a five-day week or, perhaps, a four-day week, we will have to get up very early and work more hours on the individual working days, but these are not great social disadvantages. Of course in wintry weather we all like to stay in bed a little later in the mornings but this is only habit and people have adapted well to a new routine under the progressive legislation that was introduced in 1968. I regard this Bill as a retrograde step. On every consideration it should not have been introduced. Having satisfied myself that it is socially, economically and politically undesirable, I will not be supporting the Bill.

Mr. Kavanagh

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, both of us were members of a delegation to the British House of Commons in December last when the change back to winter time was being debated. On that occasion there was general apathy among members of that House towards the change although there was a substantial pressure group from Scotland in favour of the change. This group were representative of the three parties in Britain. In particular, a former leader of the Liberal Party who represents the Shetlands advocated the change back but there certainly was apathy on the part of Members from the midlands and the industrial areas who were in favour of the new standard time but who were not sufficiently in favour of it to pressure Members from other areas to agree with them and so they allowed the change to take place then. The Minister said in the second last paragraph of his speech that unlike the British we have to have fresh legislation. I wonder why the British had to have a debate in December if they were not introducing legislation. As I recall it, there was a free vote in that House on that occasion. I do not think that the Minister is suggesting that the same thing should happen here today.

I would prefer to have standard time retained. That is a personal view because its retention would suit me. It would suit me because of our work here in the House and the amount of leisure time available to us. Nevertheless in the constituency which I represent the change upset many people of all age groups. I, as a trade unionist, visited many factories and places of business in the Wicklow area in order to arrange changes in work schedules requested as a result of the introduction of standard time in the winter months. People working on building sites and forestry and road workers were badly affected by the change. The usual time for starting work in such occupations is 8 a.m. When the change to standard time came there was not much light until after 9 a.m. This meant that people could not work in safety for the first hour of their working day during December and most of January. An attempt was made to put back the working day by one hour. As Deputy O'Donovan said, in many cases a compromise was reached where it was agreed to start half-an-hour later. There is no point in changing standard time if this means that the work has to be changed anyway and in practice the original working time was always put back by an hour so there was absolutely no change.

The change to standard time did not suit the farmers either. They would prefer light earlier in the morning. The Fine Gael Deputies mentioned the school children. City school children do not travel in the dark because most of the streets are illuminated by lamps. Children in rural areas have had to walk on dark mornings in the worst weather. If children have to go to school in harsh weather it would be preferable to have a little light in the mornings. It would be preferable to have extra light in the mornings so that people could see the children and the children could see the dangers which exist. Figures have shown that there have been less accidents in the mornings in recent years. This has been brought about as a result of a big campaign on road safety in the mornings in winter time. We should have a better road safety campaign all the year round. Such a campaign would be advantageous. Business firms gave out free armbands, stickers for school bags and specially illuminated school bags. There were contests with prizes of reflectorised items for school children. Everyone became aware of the dangers of travelling in the dark and this caused a drop in the number of accidents in the dark periods of the day. Children in rural areas suffered unduly because of the change. Most of these children travel in school buses. They are picked up at a central collection point but many of them have to be on the road an hour before the school opens. Many children have to walk a mile to the collection point. In most areas it was suggested that schools should open half an hour later but this was not acceptable to teachers or parents.

Personally I would like standard time retained but the workers, farmers and school children would prefer the return to the older system. For that reason I am in favour of the Bill and support the Minister in this change.

Mr. Ryan

Would the Minister deal with the point in relation to what effect, if any, this will have on licensing hours in licensed premises?

Dr. FitzGerald

Will the summer licensing period coincide with summer time?

Minister for Justice (Mr. O'Malley)

There will be no change in so far as that is concerned. Section 1 (2) of the 1968 Act states.

Any enactment expressed to operate or apply during a period of summer time shall be construed as operating or applying during the period prescribed as the period of summer time by the Summer Time Act, 1925, and the Summer Time Order, 1926, that is to say, the period beginning at three o'clock in the morning of the day next following the third Saturday in the month of April or, if that day is Easter Day, beginning at that hour of the day next following the second Saturday in the month of April and, in either case, ending at that hour in the morning of the day next following the first Saturday in the month of October.

That subsection is not repealed.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Minister will be making different orders each year for intoxicating liquor consumption.

Mr. O'Malley

The period for liquor consumption will remain the same as it is at the moment by virtue of subsection (2) of section 1 of the 1968 Act.

Dr. FitzGerald

There will be a period of summer time when the old licensing hours will apply and then there will be the new licensing hours, and then we will go back again, and finally back to winter time?

Mr. O'Malley

The licensing time remains the same as it is at the moment.

Dr. FitzGerald

Mid-April to early October? Summer time will be mid-March to October so the times will not coincide. We will have to do something about that.

Mr. O'Malley

They will not coincide. If the Deputy feels like doing something he may do so. I considered whether I should propose to amend section 1 (2) but I decided it would be preferable not to do so. I feel that the period of longer hours which is available at the moment is adequate. There is no demand in the months of March and October for opening until 11.30.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Minister must never have been in a pub at 11 o'clock.

Mr. O'Malley

Publicans tend to complain that the 11.30 opening is for such a long part of the year at the moment. They are opposed, as are the trade unions, to any extension of it.

While I am on the subject of trade unions, Deputy O'Leary inquired what their views were. Among those who replied to our advertisement in connection with this proposal were the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, who represent the vast bulk of trade unions in the country, the Cork Council of Trade Unions and the Federation of Rural Workers. Each of those three bodies expressed themselves very strongly in favour of the proposal in this Bill. In fact, the trade union groups who replied, and I think the Irish Congress of Trade Unions were replying on behalf of almost all of them, expressed themselves probably more strongly than any other group or organisation. Similarly, bodies like the Construction Industry Federation and the Federation of Trade Associations and so on were also strongly in favour of reverting to the pre-1968 position as they found it almost impossible to operate, as Deputy Kavanagh has explained quite clearly, under the system that existed from 1968 up to the moment.

Deputy O'Leary asked also for some sort of break-down as between city and country with regard to those who wrote in. We did not, in fact, break it down on those lines but it is correct to say that the rural dwellers are very much more strongly in favour of what is proposed in this Bill than are urban dwellers. It was enlightening to contrast the approaches in this debate of Deputy Ryan and Deputy Kavanagh. Deputy Ryan said that school children have no trouble and people going to work have no trouble because of the fact that it is not bright at 9 o'clock or 9.30 during some parts of the winter. The school children and the working people that Deputy Ryan knows have no trouble because they have street lighting and they have buses. It is all the same to them whether they are travelling in the middle of the night or in the middle of the day from the point of view of safety or visibility which are not greatly affected one way or the other. Deputy Kavanagh brought out very clearly the difference between that and the situation in rural areas. Certainly school children who have to walk several miles to school or who have to walk quite long distances before they can get a bus to go to school are in a very different position. They have no lighting of any kind. They have not got buses to their doors. Deputy Ryan and people like him who come in here and sneer at the statements that have been made on behalf of rural school children and rural workers should bear in mind that these people have the very same rights as those who travel along the well paved and well lit streets of Dublin and to whom it does not matter whether this is passed or whether it is not passed.

It was indicative of this debate and of the approach of the Opposition to compare the speeches made by Deputy O'Donovan and Deputy Ryan. These two Deputies were in 100 per cent disagreement. In fact, they constantly referred to one another as holding opposite views and that each did not agree with the other was quite evident. At the same time both of them, by some remarkable feat of mental gymnastics, sought to put the blame on the Government for the things which they condemned although the two things they condemned were diametrically opposed to one another. How the Government can be to blame for A which is the direct opposite of B and then be to blame for B in the next breath is somewhat beyond me——

Dr. FitzGerald

They are to blame for both Bills.

Mr. O'Malley

——but it is not beyond the combined efforts of the Opposition. I was accused of laying too much stress on synchronisation with Britain or parity with Britain. It was only Deputy Fitzpatrick who brought out the fact that the most important aspect of synchronisation is synchronisation with our six north eastern counties. I wonder if the Deputies opposite who are so eloquent in their condemnation of the proposals in this Bill would like to put themselves in the position of somebody in a border village in County Donegal and ask themselves what is to be the position if you live in a village five or six miles from the city of Derry and there is to be a difference of one hour in the time. It simply accentuates in a ridiculous way the ridiculous Border that exists in this country. If the Government had decided to stay as we were for the last three years they could legitimately be accused of seeking to highlight the partition of our six north-eastern counties and I have no doubt that those who this morning accused us of slavishly following Britain would get up and would just as eloquently and as vehemently accuse us, if we did not make this change, of being proud and arrogant and of refusing to do it simply because Britain did it.

I was accused of taking the interests of international travel and transport into account to the detriment of the needs of the ordinary people. I made clear in my opening speech that if difficulties with neighbouring countries and with the partitioned part of our country did not exist, if we as a country existed in a vacuum and could, without causing any complication, choose whatever system of time suited us best, the system which we have now is almost identical with that which was recommended by the Summer Time Committee in 1941. They recommended what, on the basis of our regarding ourselves in isolation, would be the best system of time to adopt and what they did recommend in those circumstances was almost identically what we have now. It differed by a week or thereabouts at each end. Therefore, if none of these outside considerations were to apply and we were to accept the recommendation of this committee as being the system that was most beneficial to the people what we would have is what I am now proposing to the House in this Bill.

Deputies Fitzpatrick, FitzGerald and others made the point that the Government should not have made the change which was made in 1968 but should have waited until now to see how Britain would get on and whether the thing worked out or not. I have no doubt that if the Government in 1968 had decided to wait for three years it would have caused chaos in the past three years in this country. Everybody who genuinely looks at the thing knows that. I also know that Deputies Fitzpatrick and FitzGerald and the others who complained about the fact that the Government did not wait for three years in 1968 would have been complaining very constantly during the past three years if that change had not been made and would have been moaning about the problems that would be created by that kind of situation for almost everybody in the country.

Deputy FitzGerald laid a good deal of emphasis on the report prepared by An Foras Forbartha and gave quotations from it but I want to quote a sentence in the first paragraph of the summary on page 14 which I think Deputy FitzGerald neglected, no doubt due to an oversight, to read. That was:

However, the reduction

—that is the reduction in accidents

—can only be ascribed, with some reservation, to the change in Standard Time because of the short before and after periods and because of the inability to verify the suitability of the control group.

Dr. FitzGerald

The next sentence?

Mr. O'Malley

The next sentence is a new paragraph.

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes. Would the Minister read it?

Mr. O'Malley

It says:

The change in the number of fatal plus personal injury accidents was exactly as would be expected from an examination of the light condition chart and of the hourly distribution of traffic accidents.

Dr. FitzGerald

Exactly.

Mr. O'Malley

The point that the author of this study is making in the sentence I quoted was that no firm or reliable conclusion could be drawn from the study for the reason he gave. He says in effect that the slightly beneficial effect can only with reservations be ascribed to the change to standard time and if one looks at the fact that the period involved was only one of six or seven weeks from 1st January to 17th February it is easy to see why the author had reservations about drawing very sweeping conclusions from it. There is no doubt, as a number of Deputies opposite were honest enough to point out, that in the normal way if no precautions had been taken by the Government at the time and if the major campaign of the kind mounted had not been mounted, the change made in 1968 would and must inevitably have led to a significant increase in traffic accidents, particularly to children on their way to school in the mornings.

Dr. FitzGerald

And a great reduction in the evenings.

Mr. O'Malley

In that short period for which there was a test there was a slight reduction. That slight reduction was a wonderful thing because it was a slight reduction on the previous year when the problem did not arise and, therefore, it was a very considerable reduction in what would have been the number of accidents if the campaign had not been carried out. The slight reduction is attributable almost entirely to the fact that this extensive campaign was carried out and that there was wonderful co-operation by school teachers and many commercial firms who assisted in it. It seems most remarkable that the fact that an otherwise inevitable increase in fatalities was avoided as a result of this should be used as an argument in favour of standard time——

Dr. FitzGerald

No——

Mr. O'Malley

I did not interrupt the Deputy who went on for a long time in a very annoying way.

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes. I am very glad.

Mr. O'Malley

I am trying to finish my speech now. I doubt if any Deputy who has spoken in the last few years to the parents of a rural school-going child has not been requested, for God's sake, to put back the hour's daylight in the mornings and not have children constantly put at risk. It is solely due to the fact that this extensive campaign was carried out that there was not what would otherwise be an inevitable large rise in the number of accidents. I hope when this change comes about and when darkness comes an hour earlier in the evenings the same campaign will be carried out by the same people with the same enthusiasm and effectiveness to save lives and limbs. While the need is not, perhaps, as great because most children would be home before darkness quite a significant number would not, and might otherwise be put in danger. I hope that all the work done and precautions taken in the past three years will be continued in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am dissenting.

Deputy FitzGerald recorded as dissenting.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Next Stage?

Dr. FitzGerald

I think we shall have to ask for a postponement of the next Stage because the Minister in his rather belated explanation at the beginning of his closing speech in reply to Deputy Ryan raised an issue which we have to consider, the question of the impact on the licensing hours. Nothing was said in his opening speech about this and the Minister does not clarify it and the speeches made in the Dáil and Seanad on the last occasion appear to be contradictory, so that we were left in some doubt as to what the position was. We need to consider what amendment, if any, in the licensing hours might be needed. I ask that Committee Stage be postponed to give us time to consider that.

Mr. O'Malley

No amendment is proposed. The matter did not arise under this Bill and, therefore, I could not have mentioned it.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Minister could have mentioned many things which he did not mention but the point is that this Bill will now have the effect of creating a situation which did not exist in the past three years in which we will have a summer time period for general purposes and a different summer time period for licensing purposes. That is a new development which may or may not be desirable. We need to consider what, if any, action is required on that. It emerged only at the beginning of the Minister's closing speech. We have had no time to consider the matter and would like a little time to consider what action, if any, may be needed.

Mr. O'Malley

There is no summer time under the Bill; it is winter time we are establishing for a short period of the year. What the Deputy is obviously referring to as summer time is standard time and it has been so called for three years and that remains under the Bill. The licensing question does not arise under the Bill. No change is proposed in the law and no reference is made to it in the Bill and I do not see that it arises since no change is proposed in the existing situation.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Minister is changing the law in regard to time. He is not adjusting the licensing laws in accordance with that.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. Andrews)

It is only fair to point out that, in fact, the Whips agreed to take all Stages today. Perhaps Deputy Kavanagh will confirm that in case my memory is at fault?

Mr. Kavanagh

We did agree at the last Whips meeting to take all Stages of this Bill today.

Mr. O'Malley

I have made arrangements to have it taken in the Seanad tomorrow.

Dr. FitzGerald

We do not want to delay matters unnecessarily and if the Minister could arrange to take it later today so as to give us time to consider this point, it might meet the situation. I think when the Whips met they were not aware—certainly I was not aware—of this problem about the licensing laws. It came up only during the debate and if we could be given a few hours to consider it we would be quite prepared to take the Committee Stage later today.

Mr. O'Malley

I shall be in the Seanad all day.

Dr. FitzGerald

All we want is some time to consider it and we shall do anything we can to facilitate the Minister.

Mr. Hogan

Does the Minister accept that there is a possibility of confusion arising because of the two different times, publicans' closing time and the ordinary new time proposed here?

Mr. O'Malley

I do not think so. This agreement was made with the Whips and I made arrangements accordingly. Could I get it before 3 o'clock as I shall be in the Seanad from 3 p.m. until 10 p.m.?

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes, certainly. I do not want to cut across the Whips agreement except to the extent that it is necessary to give an hour's thought to this question.

Mr. O'Malley

I do not want to interfere with other Bills as I think that would be unfair. May I suggest 2.55 p.m.?

Dr. FitzGerald

That would ensure an extremely brief period for discussion.

Minister for Labour (J. Brennan)

By agreement with the Whips, business has been ordered for today and I do not think this petty point would justify interrupting business.

Mr. O'Malley

I do not think so either. I have been very reasonable.

Dr. FitzGerald

We will accept the Minister's suggestion of 2.55 p.m.

Committee Stage ordered for 2.55 p.m.