Should not the Bill be moved by some one?
DAMAGE TO PROPERTY (COMPENSATION) BILL, 1923. - SUMMER TIME BILL, 1923.
Question put:—"That the Summer Time Bill, 1923, be read a Second Time."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
No.
I desire to offer the strongest opposition to the passing of this Bill, as I believe the majority of the people view it with disfavour. I think it will be admitted that the agricultural section of the community, the farmers and the agricultural labourers who are opposed to this Bill, form the bulk of the Nation. It would be very wrong for the Oireachtas to pass any law which would hamper or entail loss to these people, especially as the other sections of the community living in towns and cities would not be inconvenienced or suffer any loss by the continuance of the existing time. There is nothing to prevent people in the towns and cities from so regulating their hours of starting work as to suit their own convenience. There is nothing to prevent them starting their work one or two hours earlier than at present. We have always hoped that when we got a Parliament and a Government of our own, freely elected by the people of Ireland, only such laws would be passed as would be for the benefit of the majority of the people, and no matter what laws another country, differently circumstanced, passed for the benefit of its people, that there should be nothing to compel us to copy foreign legislation which would be unsuitable to the wants and needs of our own people. If the Summer Time Act had not been passed in Great Britain it is almost a certainty that we would not be called upon to discuss this Bill. We must remember that the conditions in Great Britain are entirely different from those existing here. In Great Britain agriculture plays only a minor role in the life of the people, and the industrial population occupying the cities and towns form the vast majority of the people there. We have also to remember that the ordinary time in Great Britain is the natural sun time, whereas here the existing time is from twentyfive to forty minutes in advance of the sun time. Many arguments put forward in the Dáil in favour of this Bill appear to me to be based on a misapprehension or on incorrect information. It has been stated that practically all the European countries have adopted the principle of Summer Time, and that the farmers in these countries have the same difficulties as in Ireland, but that recognising the benefits internationally of adopting such an Act they have withdrawn their opposition. Since that argument was used we have seen that the farmers in France have compelled their Government to abandon their intention of forcing on them Summer Time. In the case of France and England the volume of traffic and inter-communication between the two countries is far in excess of that between Ireland and Great Britain. It has been admitted by the promoters of the Bill that dairy and tillage farmers will suffer losses. They minimise that statement by saying that that class of farmer is not very numerous to-day in the country. I can assert that that class of farmer gives more employment and produces more food than any other. The Seanad is now being called upon to pass a Bill which will hamper, harrass, and cause loss to that section of the community, and that will result, I fear, in the diminution of the already diminished area under tillage. It has been stated that there is one class of farmer that would benefit by this Bill, the fruit and market farmer. It has been asserted that he can gather his produce with the dew on it in the morning. I do not know anything about that class of farmer, but if that is an advantage to him I must say that that class of farming is not very extensively practised. It has also been stated that this Summer Time will not cause any serious loss or real inconvenience to the farmers. If that were so, I would not oppose it. Any farmer with practical experience knows that very often crops would be entirely lost or would be seriously damaged if the farming community did not work up to a very late hour in favourable weather in order to save these crops. Another reason why it was stated the Bill should be passed, and which I think carried some votes in the Dáil, was that nobody need obey this law. If this law is not to be obeyed I think it would be more dignified for the Oireachtas to leave the clock alone, with liberty to every section of the community to rise and go to bed whenever they wish, and to start their work and conclude it and do their business at times that would suit their convenience.
I think it is very undesirable, and I have the strongest objection to passing laws if they are not intended to be obeyed. The agricultural labourers are just as much opposed to this Bill as the farmers, as they have the strongest objection to being compelled to attend to their work in the early hours provided by it. As regards other countries we have Canada with five different times, the United States with four times, and I am not aware that there is any great inconvenience or loss in connection with trains carrying passengers between one country and the other. We had Irish time in force here some years ago, before Greenwich time was imposed on us by the British Parliament, and I do not remember that there was any great inconvenience in carrying on traffic between Ireland and Great Britain. I would like the Seanad to remember that there is very great depression in agriculture in Ireland as well as in other countries, and they might consider that certain remedial measures are being considered elsewhere to help agriculture. Up to the present the farming community have lacked similar assistance from the Oireachtas, but it is very possible that in the near future they may ask for such assistance. In other places it is contemplated to give subsidies by a reduction of rates to help the farmers. If the Oireachtas is not in a position to give material aid to the farmers they should at least refrain from forcing this Bill with the evil effects which it would entail on the already hard-pressed farmers of Ireland.
In opposing the Second Reading of this Bill I desire to point out that the Summer Time Act was first forced on this country by the English Parliament, a body legislating for an industrial population. I am quite willing to admit that the Summer Time Act may have conferred some benefits on townspeople. It has been stated that there will be confusion if the Summer Time Act is enforced in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not enforced in the Irish Free State. Some time ago there was a difference in the time between the two countries and I am not aware that it gave rise to any inconvenience. We all know that France has refused to continue the Summer Time Act evidently in deference to the wishes of the agricultural population. For the benefit of those who are unacquainted with agricultural work I may state that the hours of the evening are much more favourable for harvesting operations than those of the morning, which are generally useless for that purpose. I have never known farmers to be so agreed on any subject as this. As agriculture is the main industry of the country I think it should be given consideration and should not be penalised. I hope the Seanad will reject this Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
As Colonel Moore may think that I ruled out an objection of his some time ago summarily in respect to the Standing Orders, I should mention that under Rule 58 where a Bill is a Government Bill the motion for the Second Reading has to be put by me from the Chair without the Bill being proposed or seconded.
I agree, but I think it would be more convenient if someone proposed the Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I could not allow that.
It does not matter. Everyone knows, and well the Ministers know, that this Summer Time Bill is a minority Bill. The majority of the people of Ireland are against it, and the only reason that I ever heard put forward in its favour is that it confers a great favour on the minority than it does the reverse to the majority. I do not really know how you are to sum up an equation of that sort. You might as well say Shylock gained a greater advantage from the great interest he charged on his money than the unfortunate people who had to pay it suffered by the loss of the money. It seems to be an unreasonable argument and one which is futile. I regret that an Irish Government should follow in the footsteps of an English Government. In England the great majority of people live in the towns while here the majority live in the country. The circumstances are also totally different. To come to the question of fisheries, down at Foynes and Arklow the trains start with the fish at 7 o'clock in the morning. We have already thrown away half-an-hour of our time by adopting English time, and if we put on another hour it will make one and a-half hours. In Foynes that would mean one and three-quarter hours. It is just to please a few people in the towns that they should be expected to get up in the middle of the night to bring in their fish. They cannot do it, because they cannot bring in the fish at that time of the morning, and it practically ruins the fishing in these places, and all this just to please a few lazy fellows in the towns who will not get up early. It is not necessary to put back the clock to make a man get up early; all he has to do is to shake himself, get up an hour earlier or not, or do what he likes. Why should the poor country people be caused all these annoyances to please the fellows in the towns? It has been stated that it is a difference of an hour and three quarters, which is a great deal too much. People have referred to the example of France, but they have forgotten that Paris is east of London, whereas we are west of it, and therefore it does not affect France in the same manner as it affects us. The most the people of Paris would have to gain would be 50 minutes whereas we lose an hour and three-quarters. As a matter of fact even they have thrown it out and gone back to the half hour, which is just the ordinary difference we have here. These are sensible people. If there were another island further west than this, and if they followed English time they would have to get up three or four hours earlier, or in the middle of the night. If there were a referendum on this subject, do the Ministers think it would pass? I am not quite sure the Constitution would not give them a referendum on it. If any disagreeable person chooses to propose it I do not think there is any question but that the Government would be defeated, and a great many people would help the referendum, because everybody in the country would vote against this proposal, because everyone would go round the country to help to get votes against it. People say that failure to adopt it would put out trains and various things like that, but during almost the whole of my life there was a 25 minutes difference in the time between England and Ireland. It did not upset train or steamer arrangements during all this time, and nobody thought of doing this until it was done for war purposes in England. Then it was found that it would upset traffic between Ireland and England if we kept our clocks at the proper time. How did we manage for all these years? We got on quite well without it and it upset nothing. I think it would be very much better if the Minister would go back and adopt the old Irish system of having our own time and sticking to it.
Before the Minister speaks I would like to say a word, if it were only to relieve Senator O'Farrell's mind by telling him that I am against this Bill. What has most impressed me in considering the advantages and disadvantages of Summer Time is the fact that countries like Canada, France, Holland, Denmark, and Germany, after a few years experience, have dropped it notwithstanding the great boon it was supposed to confer on the industrial population. Now, if the economic argument is sound — the argument that is expressed so strongly by the advocates of the Bill — it is not likely that these countries would reject it, considering that their industrial population is a great deal more than ours. Their industrial centres are a great deal more populous, and, as far as I can see, the economic argument leaves them cold. This should make us pause, as the people of these countries are by no means so stupid as not to know what is good for them, and as industrial competitors they are nothing behind us, in either keenness or science. Certainly England, not to mention this country, has much to learn from them. These countries were all parties to a world agreement as to time which was reached at a conference of international scientists, held at Washington in the early 80's, and of which the imposition of Greenwich time in Ireland is a direct violation. Notwithstanding this and the fact that the countries I have mentioned have rejected Summer Time it is now proposed to apply Summer Time to this country, to which it is suited least of all. It is proposed, not only to apply it but give us a double dose of it, because I maintain that with the imposition of Greenwich time we already have Summer Time. As Colonel Moore mentioned, in some places in the West of Ireland such as Galway, they were 36 minutes, and in some parts of Kerry they are 42 minutes later than Greenwich, and when you add an hour to that you will have noon arriving about a quarter past ten in the morning. That is, I think, an intolerable position. The Government tell us that we can ignore this Bill. It is not very dignified nor self-respecting on the part of the Government to introduce legislation and to invite the country to ignore it. The country cannot ignore it; it is compelled to recognise it. If a farmer wishes to go to a market, a fair, a post office or a town to transact business he must recognise this new time and the result is a welter of confusion in the country, one part going by one time and another by another. If the people want to take advantage of this extra hour of daylight the obvious and natural course for them is to rise an hour earlier. If people are early risers it does not require a Summer Time Bill to get them up. It is only, as Colonel Moore said, the lazy fellows who want to lie in bed until 8 or 9 o'clock in the morning, who want to be coaxed out of bed by legislation and want to be deluded into the belief that 6.30 is actually 8 o'clock. I think it is a ridiculous Bill and a Bill that is simply dignifying humbug and make-belief by legislation, and that the proper name of the Bill should not be the Summer Time Bill, but should be the Lazy Man's Delusion Bill.
A member of the Dáil said to me that he had intended to vote against this Bill, but when he had heard the arguments against it in the Dáil he voted for it, and it was on that principle that I did not intervene at the beginning. I wanted the opponents of the Bill to make their case for me. Now, it is all nonsense to talk about the extra twentyfive minutes. That has nothing to do with the purpose of this Bill. That twenty-five minutes is now part of the ordinary conditions. It is part of the thing that is taken into account when times of doing anything are fixed. It need not be considered, and it ought not to be considered in connection with this matter. This matter is dealing with the change to be made during summer time. Senator Linehan talked about passing laws that would be of benefit to the majority of the people. He believed, now that we had our own Legislature, that we should only have laws that would benefit the majority of the people. I do not think it is a doctrine that anyone would subscribe to. There can be tyranny, as we all know, by the majority, just as there can be tyranny by the individual, and we have to consider the minority as well as the majority. Our case in this matter is that it would benefit considerably the minority of our people—that it will be a real benefit to them, and that it will not do any damage to anybody. We have heard a good deal of talk about the damage it does to agriculturists. For my part, I do not believe it has done a pennyworth of damage to agriculturists in the past, or that it will do any damage in the future. I believe that is the kind of talk which is easy to put together, and which has really nothing behind it. There is no use either in talking about lazy men. The worker in the city cannot decide to start his work an hour earlier. If he is a worker in a shop, he cannot decide that the shop will be open an hour earlier. The owner of a business place cannot decide that it will be open an hour earlier, because he has to consider such matters as posts, railways, and telegraphs. What is to be done in those cases is to get the whole community to move as a unit. The individual cannot alter his time of starting business at will, and the individual employer cannot alter at will the time at which his employees will start. Anybody who has lived in Dublin, for instance, during the past two or three years will agree that the long evenings, with the people out on the streets until dusk, through getting up an hour earlier in the morning, is a thing that must be of the greatest advantage to the citizens from the point of view both of enjoyment and health. Undoubtedly it means that the ordinary working people in the city have an extra hour's daylight in which to be out in the evening in the roads, streets, and parks.
Now that is a thing in which we should not say the minority does not matter, that we should ignore them and consider only the prejudices of some people who do not want a change. The fact that this was first adopted by the British Parliament should not affect us. We should look at it as our own problem, and, as far as the Government is concerned, we look upon it as a thing we have to consider and come to a decision upon. Neither here nor in the Dáil has anybody said anything that would, I think, carry any conviction that this Bill will do any damage to agriculturalists. As a matter of fact we know for their own business purposes they simply ignore it. It makes no change in the actual time, the time by the sun by which they start their work, and consequently they are not injured by it. That is the experience I have had in any part of the country I have been in since it came into operation. Agricultural work started the same time as before and no one suffered. Then there is the question of the border difficulty, and it is one we cannot quite ignore. For instance, we have railway lines running across the border two or three times perhaps in the course of a few miles, and there would be a certain amount of difficulty from the point of view of the railway companies if we have different times on the two sides of the border. That is a matter that we ought to give some little consideration to, and we ought to take it into account when we are deciding whether or not we should adopt this Bill. It will certainly cause some degree of confusion there. On Sunday next the six counties time will be changed, and if we decide that it is not to be changed here we have got little time to make the necessary adjustments. This Bill is only intended to run till 31st December next. A statute will then have to be brought in renewing it. If the Seanad feels that it ought not to be continued it will have an opportunity in December next of striking out that. That will give any amount of time for railway companies and the Post Office to make any adjustments that may be necessary. I will put one point of view and that is that it is a thing that benefits large numbers of people and that it has been resisted largely on political grounds, but I think that it ought to be given one year's trial as our own measure, as something not imposed on us, but something we did ourselves. I know myself that many people opposed it because it was one of the things done by the British Government at a time feeling against the British Government was acute. I suggest it would be a good thing to give this measure a chance of being judged on its merits. If at the end of this year they feel it should not be continued, then it could be knocked out in December and the matter would be done. There will also be ample time for people along the Border and for railways and others to make their arrangements and to carry on with a different time across the Six County Border. As far as I have heard or have been able to observe, the only difficulty it imposed on country people was calculating the real time. Undoubtedly you are continually meeting people in the country who if it was 9 o'clock were scratching their heads and wondering whether it was 8 o'clock or 10 o'clock. They had great difficulties in making that calculation because of the mental strain it imposed, and they were against the Summer Time for this reason apart from the political objection. I do not think it is a sort of mental strain we should shrink from putting on the people. If they had to think along mathematical lines it would perhaps be good for them. I would suggest to the Seanad that at this stage they ought not hastily to turn down the Bill, that if they are against it they should give it one chance, one summer as an Irish measure and not a thing that there was any question of politics concerned in. Then deal with it in December next if still opposed to it, and if necessary let it be struck out of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and the matter will be done with, and there will be three or four months in which the people concerned about this time on the border can make their arrangements.
To judge by the Minister's remarks you might think this was the first year we tried this Bill. I am speaking now from the point of view of agriculture, which has had three years' experience of this Bill, and the agriculturalists have made up their minds very strongly that it is highly unpopular. I assure the Seanad if they went through the country amongst these Farmers' Unions, everywhere you go you would get evidence of the unpopularity of this Summer Time. I cannot believe the objection is due either to politics or prejudice. It is certainly free from any political thought or suggestion, and I refuse to believe that it is one wholesale mass of prejudice. There is a strong feeling of inconvenience and of detrimental effect to their industry. Although personally I prefer Summer Time, I feel on this matter I must study what is wanted by the majority of the people of the country engaged in our principal industry fundamentally underlying most of the main prosperity of the country. That being so, I feel with majority rule, that there is a duty due in this case, and it is not a question of relative advantage to the townsman as against the countryman. No principle is involved, and surely in that case majority rule ought to prevail. It is because I firmly believe the majority of the country is opposed to the Bill, that I am going to vote against it, though I prefer it myself. The Minister suggested that farmers can contract out. It is not quite so simple as that. I know in some cases it is done by arrangement, but I know in others employers and employees cannot arrange it, and in that case the thing breaks down, and Summer Time has to prevail. To deprive a farmer of an hour and three quarters of his best time is a very serious injury. You cannot assess the damage it does, just as you cannot assess damage done by rats on a farm. The damage done by rats is enormous, and no one would believe it. The cumulative effect of the damage done by a thing like this is colossal; and for that reason it has a serious effect on the economic condition of the country. The debit balance is against recreation or leisure hours of the town population. What would be very interesting—I do not suggest it be done now, but perhaps later on when the Register is ready — would be to try a referendum on this question. I think if it were put to the test of the vote that the Government would find that it would do some damage to their prestige.
Mr. Blythe is trying to pass his Bill by ridicule. I do not think that he produced any argument in favour of the Bill except that his Bill was so late the effect of not passing it would cause confusion. If England were to drop this Bill next year, I would wager Mr. Blythe that we should drop it too if the present Government were in power. We are accustomed to minority rule — we take it for granted — and this morning the Independent instructed us to put on our clocks an hour next Sunday. As usual, we allow the nimble townsmen to boss us. This is only a question of convenience, and I submit that it would be possible to carry out the advantages of this Bill by an order directing the Government offices to open and trains to run an hour earlier. The probability is that large institutions such as banks would open an hour earlier, and therefore I do not see why we should be inconvenienced by statute when the minority could be convenienced by order. It is not necessary to reject this Bill for fear of confusion, because by the means I have suggested the time-tables could be arranged and the townsman could get his air in the evening.
I have some diffidence in speaking on this Bill, because I have no clever phrases to introduce. I think a good deal of discussion is beside the point and does not deal with the real issue. Sir John Keane said that it was a matter between the advantage of the town and the detriment of the country, and he suggested that the damage to the country was so great that it should tip the balance in the dispute. I suggest that we have not had put before us the damage which this Bill would inflict on the country as against the gain, which is not disputed, to the workers in the towns. Mr. MacLysaght is not generally asleep, but when he stated that the Minister did not use a single argument in favour of the Bill he entirely ignored what I think was the main point, and a perfectly sound one, made by the Minister, that the alteration of time does give to people in the towns an opportunity of more daylight, and does lead consequently to a pretty considerable gain in the health and comfort of the persons in the towns. Mr. MacLysaght is prepared, instead of the Bill, to have an order — I suppose an ex gratia order — by which you order the railways and principal offices to start an hour earlier, and he thinks that if that were done the shops would also follow. I would like to know from our friends in the country if that were done by order, instead of by a Bill, whether they would be quite satisfied. We could then have a Government Order which would provide for daylight-saving, but I suggest that they might adopt the suggestion of the Minister and keep the hours for once. Personally I believe the objection would not be anything like so great as the confusion caused in regard to the observance of various times — God's time, English time, and Summer time. Personally I believe that if the opposition remains for a year we shall have to have a referendum on this issue, but I am not so sure, when you get the votes of the townspeople, that you will not find, taking Ireland as a whole, that there is a majority in favour of Summer Time. I think there is a majority. In this matter I think the argument that, although we may be cut off for the moment from Ulster — a partition which most of us do not approve or recognise— is a strong argument that we should keep the same time as they. I think the question of England does not arise now, and will not arise in the future, but the question of Ulster does, and I am glad to support the Bill.
As a farmer, I should perhaps say that I am sorry to rise as a supporter of the Bill. We have had plenty of experience of this Bill for five years, and on the whole I think that nobody has suffered disadvantage. The farming community in the country have had no compulsion placed on them and really a very small percentage of farmers were required to keep Summer Time. In all my experience of the Free State I have not heard of any farmers, except in a few isolated cases, who were under the necessity of keeping Summer Time. Sir John Keane said that he himself would prefer to keep Summer Time, yet he is going to vote against the Bill. Among the arguments which have been made against the Bill I could see none to convince me that the Bill should be rejected. The only argument as to inconvenience is that in regard to the sending of children to school, but it has been stated in the Dáil that the Minister for Education could make an order rectifying that. I believe that the Bill should pass and I will support it.
I am afraid I must differ very strongly with the last Senator who spoke, because he seems to have a desire to leave the impression upon the Seanad that it was a voluntary act on the part of the farmer whether he kept old or new time. It is possible that farmers have a free hand in his district, but I know many places where they are subject to the government of the Transport Union and we have to conform to their rules. The consequence is that in hay-making time or at the harvest we lose one and a-half hours of the best time of the day in saving our corn. That is the real practical objection which I have to the Bill. I have no other.
In regard to school children, it is not necessary that the Minister for Education should make a ruling, as it is in the hands of managers to arrange any school hours they please. Not much has been said on the workers' behalf. Now I ask those farmers have they followed the new time, and, if so, have they suffered much inconvenience? In my experience in the West and Midlands no farmer has followed the new time, and no farmer has suffered the least inconvenience except in a district where milk has to be supplied to the towns. It was known that in days when farmers had to send milk by road they had to milk their cows at 2 o'clock in the morning, at a time when, as has been stated in the Lower House, the animals were asleep. That was in the old time. I believe the objections of the farmers are for the most part sentimental ones. I would ask Senator Linehan whether he has observed the new time, and I would ask Senator Butler to ascertain how many farmers have kept the new time? I think the Minister's offer is a very generous one. He has stated that this has had a political tinge. It undoubtedly had in that everything that came from England was tinged in that way, and was opposed by our people. Let them take this as a measure coming from an Irish Assembly, and I venture to say that prejudice will not be responsible for any kind of inconvenience. It was stated here this afternoon that it was a minority Bill. I question that. I believe that if to-morrow the issue were put before the country it would prove to be not a minority but a majority one. The health of the workers seems to receive no consideration from many of our speakers. The health of a nation is most important and I think it should have primary consideration. At least it should be given more consideration and be valued much more above the small inconvenience that this Bill will cause to what I believe is but a small minority of the people of this country.
On listening to the debate so far, one would say that except the last Senator who has spoken, we are all engaged in the farming industry. I have not heard a single individual represent the requirements of the business community and the industries of the country. Of course, the great industry of our Free State is agriculture. Honestly, if one could believe that a real serious injury was being done to the farming community by the Summer Time Bill, I, for one, would vote against it, but, as the last Senator stated, and I agree with him, there is not any solid ground for all the statements we have heard made about losses to the farmers. I meet a good deal of them, we have dealings with a great many farmers growing cereal crops, and I have not heard any of them complain that they have had any difficulty in producing them under the Summer Time Act. When you come to look at it from the business point of view, I think it is important that we should encourage industrial, manufacturing, and business people. When you come to consider the difference of time then we can speak of real injury. It was treated as a casual thing, a mere matter of 25 minutes, and it was said that it made no difference whether we were behind London or not. If you take the Stock Exchange or Banking businesses, it makes a great difference. It is a serious thing when the Stock Exchanges in London and elsewhere are open an hour before ours. If you go and make the Free State an hour behind everybody in Great Britain, and an hour behind everybody in Northern Ireland, it will be a real disqualification that will seriously affect the business houses in this country. And it makes no matter to say that we do not have to get up in the morning, because no matter what time is adopted everyone has so many hours in bed. It is a real serious business consideration. If we have a different time from the whole of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we shall be disqualifying ourselves most seriously by our own act. When we talk of different times in countries like France or Canada or the United States enormous areas work all on one time. If they were to work little bits here and there, and have all sorts of different times that would very seriously injure their business interests, and that is exactly what we are going to do if we have a different time from Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Later we will have an hour earlier, and that is where we will all be met. I do not think Senator McLysaght even could design an Act compelling people to open offices, railways, etc. That can only be dealt with in a Bill of this kind. It would be a serious handicap to be an hour behind our competitors, and I would ask our Senators seriously to consider whether they are really subject to such injury as they think, and to give a little time to consider what the business man would really suffer.
There is no question as regards the health and everything of that kind of the denizens of the cities and of the workmen and employers alike. It is a very great boon, indeed, to every one of us who is engaged in offices or business premises. It is, as the Minister has said, a very great boon to the health of the people. It is also a very great gain to a good many people in the saving of light. It is not, as we have heard in so many speeches to-day, a small matter for the minority of the population. I hold it is the very reverse. It is a serious thing for the minority; it is not as serious a thing for the majority. The minority at present in this country are looking after affairs which it is of vital importance to the Free State should succeed. We should not do anything to hamper the men who are trying to establish industries and make this a great industrial country as well as an agricultural one.
It is very hard to take quite seriously the arguments advanced against the passing of this Bill. One must come to the conclusion that the objections are nine-tenths sentimental. We have been told by one Senator after another that considerable inconvenience and loss are occasioned to farmers and to the agricultural industry by the operation of Summer Time, but not one of them has told us in what way. Certainly I cannot find, in any of the speeches made, any single clear and definite instance in which serious inconvenience has been caused. Naturally the farmers are interested in fairs and markets, and in trade and the proper carrying on of trade, as much as any other section of the community. I would ask them to consider the position of the railways crossing the border. The Great Northern Railway crosses the border at about sixteen different points, and a number of other railways, such as the Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties, the Dundalk, Newry and Greenore, and the Lough Swilly also cross the border. A large number of cattle bought in the West of Ireland at great fairs, such as Ballinasloe, travel north via Belfast to England. Large numbers of them also travel to Dublin and cross the Channel. At the present time we are only concerned with this particular year. You can fancy the tremendous inconvenience that will be caused during the next few weeks if our time is an hour behind that of the Six Counties and of Great Britain. Railway Companies have been proceeding on the assumption that this Bill is going to become law, and they have no time now to make the enormous alterations that will be necessary if any difference of time operates. Farmers would be affected by that state of affairs to as great an extent as any other section of the community. I know something about farmers, as my father was a small farmer, and I lived in the country the greater part of my life. I know that it is a great tradition with the farmer that what was good enough for his forefathers is good enough for him. Senator Colonel Moore put it straight to-day when he asked how did we get along in the past with the old time? If we advance the clock an hour some farmers will tell you that the end of the world has come. If they had their way some of them would be digging to-day with a stone implement instead of a plough. It is a well-known fact that Summer Time has not been observed and does not regulate the hours of work in country districts. We are told that we are threatened with diminution of agricultural produce, and we know that the years during which the greatest amount of produce was turned out were those since the Summer Time Act was passed. I think 1918 was an absolute record in the production of agricultural produce so that the contrary argument falls flat. Senator Colonel Moore talks about legislating in order to make lazy fellows get up. His whole argument was really in favour of the few lazy fellows of farmers who will not get up. It is suggested by Senator MacLysaght that an order might be issued so that trains would run earlier. That is really the kernel of the position. If the trains run an hour earlier, and if the Banks, Post Offices and public houses open an hour earlier and close an hour earlier all the inconvenience that has been conjured up as being caused to that terribly afflicted section of the agricultural community will take place. I do not think the Seanad would be well advised to take their first very serious step on this particular question. If they want a collision with the Dáil have it on some more important question. I tender my wholehearted sympathy to the Government in having lost the support of some of the greatest stalwarts in the Seanad on this Bill.
Question put: "That the Summer Time Bill be read a Second Time."
The Seanad divided:— Tá, 19; Níl, 13.
Tá
- James Green Douglas.
- Mrs. Eileen Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- William Cummins.
- Dowager Countess of Desart.
- Michael Duffy.
- Mrs. Alice Stopford Green.
- Henry Seymour Guinness.
- Rt. Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Joseph Clayton Love.
- Edward McEvoy.
- Thomas McPartlin.
- James Moran.
- George Nesbitt.
- John Thomas O'Farrell.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- Col. Sir W. Hutcheson Poe, Bart.
- Mrs. Jane Wyse Power.
- Earl of Wicklow.
Níl
- Richard A. Butler.
- Peter de Loughrey.
- Sir Nugent Everard.
- Martin Fitzgerald.
- Cornelius Joseph Irwin.
- Sir John Keane.
- Patrick Williams Kenny.
- Thomas Linehan.
- James MacKean.
- John MacLoughlin.
- Edward MacLysaght.
- Rt. Hon. Sir Bryan Mahon.
- Col. Maurice Moore.
Motion declared carried.
Bill read a Second Time.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The remaining items on the Orders of the Day consist of motions by Senator Douglas and Senator Yeats. Perhaps the Seanad would decide if they would have the Final Stage of the Damage to Property Bill to-morrow, as well as the Committee and the other stages of the Summer Time Bill.
If there was general agreement that all the Stages of the Summer Time Bill be taken to-morrow, I would be agreeable, but if not, I think we ought to take the Committee Stage now.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think those interested in opposing this Bill will be content, if the Second Reading is carried, that the remaining stages should be taken to-morrow. Will Senators object to that?
No.