I move:—
That Seanad Éireann hereby approves of the Summer Time Order, 1947, made by the Minister for Justice under the Summer Time Act, 1925 (No. 8 of 1925).
Summer Time Order, 1947—Motion of Approval.
The Government authorised the putting down of this motion. The British are introducing summer time next week and they propose to have double summer time. If we did not take this step, a large number of alterations of time-tables would be required. In addition, this change will bring about a saving in light and gas. Everybody realises that no saving in that connection at the present time could be regarded as negligible. By proceeding in this way, we shall have only two changes to make, whereas five or six changes would be necessary if we did not adopt this course. If the motion were not approved, time-table changes for communications with Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be necessary on the 16th March, when the British introduce summer time; on the 13th April, when the British introduce double summer time; on the 20th April, when summer time commences here in the ordinary way; on the 10th August, when double summer time ends, and on the 2nd November, when summer time ends in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The question of the saving of coal is, of course, an important consideration.
It antedates the thing by about three weeks.
Instead of the 20th of April, it will be the 16th of March and it will be the 2nd November instead of the 5th October.
In all the circumstances, there is hardly any alternative but to do this. One could discuss the general question of summer time in regard to different parts of the community, but this is a particular case. We would be adopting summer time in any event on the 20th of April and we are simply antedating it by about a month, so the Minister's argument in bringing it in is quite a sound one. The only discussion is whether we ought to have summer time or not, which I think is really not the point that arises now, as we have decided to have summer time. In the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves, it does seem from the practical point of view to be just as well to put it into operation from the 16th of March instead of from the 20th April.
There are many people in the country who object to it and there are many arguments in favour of keeping the natural time, but, in the circumstances, I think there is no alternative but do this particular thing for this particular year.
As a countryman, I would not like to let the Minister away with the idea that this is satisfactory to the country people, because it is not. Frankly, although the Minister is generally persuasive, I cannot pretend to be very strongly convinced about the difficulties involved in the altering of time schedules. Is he referring to the trains that do not run? My colleague talks about the trains going across the Border, or that used to go across. They are being cut in two as well as most of our other supplies. This summer time creates all sorts of complications in country districts. The Minister has been talking about the difficulties that would confront him or somebody else if we do not acquiesce when the British are making changes. They are nothing to the difficulties that confront the country people as soon as the changes are made. There are difficulties regarding the schools and Masses and postal services and there is utter confusion between old time, mew time and summer time.
There may be some saving, too, in that coal we are not getting, like the trains that are not running. There may be some saving in electric light or power. The Minister never had a weaker case to make for any motion, but this is a Government decision and I suppose he must do his best. The countryman, however, must record his dissatisfaction with this decision to go against the sun, as it is not getting us very far on.
I am amazed at Senator Baxter making such a speech. He must know, as anyone in contact with the country knows, that you can say what you like about changing the time in Dublin but the country people just keep the old time. If the trains which are not running are supposed to run at 9 o'clock new time, people will take the hour into account and will arrive at the station at the right time. The same applies to Masses, fairs and everything else, and I cannot see that it makes much difference.
Senator Baxter suggests that it is a matter of very little importance. Surely Senator Baxter understands that, in a big city like Dublin, if we can save an hour's lighting it means a big thing in the drain on electricity? The same thing applies in the big towns in the country, in Cork, Waterford and Limerick. An hour's saving is a very important matter. It is absurd that there should be such suggestions about the trains that do not run and about the coal that has not arrived, the suggestion being that, if Fine Gael were in power, we would have trains running five days a week and coal coming in in shiploads.
You might.
I do not know if I am alone, but I want to oppose this motion. The Minister made no case whatever for it and did not profess to make one. He gave us no reason whatever why the clocks should be advanced another hour on the 16th of March. They are already 25 minutes ahead of the sun in Dublin and about 45 minutes ahead in the West of Ireland.
No wonder the sun does not want to put out his head.
I suppose that is our fault, too.
I do not know what case can be made for the motion by Senator Quirke. He did not profess to make a case.
I certainly did.
He did, of course, discuss the inconsistencies of Senator Baxter, but that is not a case for this motion. The case is being made in Britain by a number of people that by advancing the clock they are going to save fuel, but actually the British Home Secretary—who was probably competent to express a view on the matter—has said bluntly that it will effect no saving of fuel whatever.
No substantial saving.
Yes. Is there any suggestion that there will be a saving of fuel here in Ireland during the five weeks in which this motion will have the effect of advancing the clocks? The Minister says it would be important to save one hour's fuel or lighting in Dublin, but if you save it in the evenings you will lose it in the mornings. Let us see the effect on school children —and this is probably more important in the country than in Dublin, as they have to travel two or three miles to school. They have to be in at 9 o'clock; that will mean 9 o'clock summer time, which according to natural time is really 7.35. Some of them will be leaving their homes at 6.30 natural time in the morning, to be in school according to the school hours. Make no mistake about that. It is a tremendous hardship that children should have to get out at that hour in the morning and travel a long distance to school in weather like this.
Surely it is ludicrous to talk about summer time when the snow is still lying on Leinster Lawn, not yet swept away. Snow has been falling last week and this week in parts of the country, yet we talk of summer time. I suggest that there are very valid objections to making this Order, and I am utterly opposed to it. I cannot understand why the Minister should make it, unless it be to synchronise our clocks with the British. There was a time when we thought it a virtue that they should not be synchronised and there is no case I know of for changing our mind in this matter. It will probably be regarded as a compliment to the grand old dame, Britannia, that we move our clocks in sympathy with hers, but it is going to mean endless hardship for all the children going to school. It is going to mean a good deal of hardship for people starting at an early hour in factories, and for people starting on various kinds of work at an early hour. The first tram for Dublin leaves Dalkey some time about 5 o'clock in the morning. It is leaving Dalkey at 4 o'clock according to the present time, but from the 17th March it will be leaving at 3.30 a.m. We are already one hour 25 minutes in advance of the sun, and now we are asked to go one hour more ahead of the sun without any explanation whatever being given to us for doing so. If the Minister tells us that he is not influenced by what they are doing in Britain, I suggest that the only other influence working on his mind is that of the gentleman who will be travelling across the Irish Sea in two weeks' time to see the Grand National.
What has that to do with it?
This motion is brought forward because the Minister wants our clocks to correspond with the British time, so that people travelling by boat are not going to suffer any inconvenience. Unless there are overwhelming reasons for the making of this Order, I intend to ask the Seanad to refuse to pass the motion.
I am not going to attempt to follow Senator Duffy in his flights of fancy over the hurdles at Aintree. Surely, we must accept the Minister's motion as one that had to be brought in at an unusual time to suit an unusual condition of affairs. Nothing has been said about the serious position facing the country through the curtailment of the supply of electricity for industry. A good deal has been said about country people sticking to the old time or to God's time, but we must remember that conditions in the city are quite arbitrary. In industry, official time has to be observed, and due to a curtailment of power for industry, there is the possibility of the wholesale dismissal of work people. A reduction in fuel for power purposes has already been announced by the Electricity Supply Board. If this motion means that there can be a concentration of power for industrial purposes, then that alone would justify the Minister in bringing it before the House.
That has not been suggested.
I am suggesting it, and I have to worry about what power will be available to keep industry going.
Is that happening now?
It is. The use of electrical power for industry is cut by 25 per cent. If the acceptance of this motion means the saying of an hour's electricity for power purposes—that is, the current that would otherwise have been used for light—it will be of great advantage to industry. It is not my intention to discuss the question as to whether we should have summer time or not. That principle was discussed many years ago and has long been accepted. The reason why the Minister is introducing summer time a little earlier than usual this year is because we are facing a very serious situation, a situation far more serious for industry than some of the speakers on this motion seem to realise. I can tell Senators that industry is going to be in a jam within the next few weeks if there is no easing of the situation with regard to fuel for power. If, as I have said, we can use some of the current at present available for light, then clearly we are going to have more of it available to keep our factories going.
The passing of this motion will mean that the public houses can keep open until 10.30.
I am not worried about the public houses, but I am worrying a good deal about industry and the branch of it in which I am interested myself. Senator Duffy might let us have more freedom of speech here. He was not interrupted when he was speaking, and he might allow me to make my speech without interruption. If that is the only point the Senator wants to make—that there will be more current available for public houses if the motion is passed—then I have nothing more to say.
The Earl of Longford
I am absolutely astonished that any Senator should question the necessity for this motion, especially in view of the extremely serious position of affairs in the country. It is quite obvious that everything possible must be done to save as much light as possible. It is quite obvious that light will be saved by this measure. The whole idea of summer time, when it was introduced many years ago, was to save light. That proposition, I think, has never been disputed for a moment—that summer time does save light. We know, of course, that the people in the rural districts have their own way of dealing with this, and that is by not observing it. Senators should not forget that when the war was on we had summer time during the whole period. We had it even during the winter months, and it was not considered a hardship. We are all hoping that we shall soon have good weather and therefore I think it is a very small thing that we should be asked to pass this measure.
Mr. Quirke rose.
Is Senator Quirke concluding?
No.
Did not the Senator speak already?
No. I formally moved the motion.
That is a speech.
Senator Hayes ought to know something about this if Senator Sweetman does not.
On a point of order, Senator Quirke moved the motion. That is a speech. There is nothing known to our Standing Orders or to any form of procedure which enables a member of Parliament to move a motion and reserve his speech. Therefore, Senator Quirke made one speech technically. He did, not say anything—he hardly ever does. Secondly, Senator Quirke, unless my ears deceive me, made a rather elaborate speech about Senator Baxter's views on summer time, but maybe it was last year.
I apologise.
The Senator has spoken twice already.
When the first Summer Time Bill was introduced in the Seanad many years ago, I supported it because I thought it would not affect the farming community in any way. My farming colleagues objected to it. I see now that they were right, because a number of people in the country want to have the conditions in regard to summer time which are observed in the cities also observed in the country. If we could have summer time in the country during November, December and January it would suit us to get extra work done, but that is not allowed. Summer time in the country during the months of June, July, August and September does not suit the farmer at all. In fact, it means putting back operations on the land. The farmer cannot work too far ahead of the sun. He cannot engage in hay-making or harvesting work. I would have no objection to this motion if Senator Duffy and Senator Foran, who is not here, would agree that summer time should not apply to agricultural workers. If they want to have it applied to them, as it applies to workers in the cities, then the motion should not be passed at all.
Mr. Hawkins
Senator Duffy in his opening remarks tried to convey to the House that the Minister made no case or the Bill. This must be due to the Minister's brevity and I think that members of the House would be pleased if other members took a leaf out of the Minister's book and were as brief in putting their case as he was. I think he made the reason clear for the introduction of this Bill. We, on this side of the House, at any rate, understood those reasons. One thing we cannot understand, however, is Senator Duffy's objection to summer time. My recollection is that speakers in the Labour movement over many years have advocated the introduction of summer time and have put forward the view that it benefits workers in the cities and towns and enables them to have additional hours off in the evening for relaxation. I know that in Galway and in other towns it has been a great benefit and a great inducement to the workers to cultivate plots and save turf on the bogs. If this Bill was never introduced until this year I think a very good case could be made for it. I quite appreciate it is hardship on young people going to school, that is, where the schools adopt summer time, but that is a question for the managers and in many parts of the country the managers do not adopt the summer time and in other places they go between and halve summer time. For that reason there can be no great hardship.
I am glad Senator Hawkins raised this point. I want to object emphatically to the passing of this Bill unless we can get an assurance from the Minister that the hours will not be enforced or observed for education. I have sympathy with Senator Summerfield's interest in industry. Every one of us is interested in the industrial side, but nevertheless, I can assure the Minister and Senators here that if applied to school children this summer time will inflict great hardship, which is not necessary. As Senator Duffy has stated these children have to be at school at the present time at 9 o'clock. This means that in the next few days they will be at school at 8 o'clock, and instead of having to be up out of their beds at 7.30 a.m. they will have to be up at 6.30 a.m. That would be inflicting a great hardship on their worried mothers, who have to get them out in the mornings. And let us remember that they will be getting them out for school at a time when home comforts do not exist. There is no firing and food is scarce. I feel that the Minister should request the Department of Education to see that the hours are not observed in the schools. It will mean that the children being up so early and for so long must get more food during the day. Bread is rationed and a young lad playing around during the day will come more often to his mother looking for bread. You are also doing an injustice to the farmers in introducing it. The harvest is the most important time on the farm and you cannot do anything at it in the mornings until the dew rises off the grass. The farmers, however, can arrange it themselves and I feel that its adoption for them is not as bad as for the children who would be getting up at 6.30 in the mornings. Instead of bringing this forward three weeks earlier this year, I suggest it should be put back for a month. Having regard to the scarcity of firing and food there is also the question of the children running around the streets at night when they would be safer in bed.
If this was proposed at another time or in another year I would strenuously oppose it, but owing to the case that has been made, and owing to the shortage of power, and recognising the serious situation that is confronting the country, I will agree to it. I would like, however, that it should be known and recorded that were it not for the situation confronting us presently I would oppose it for the reason that it does not suit rural Ireland. Take, for instance, hay-making in summer time. The dew is not off the grass in the morning, and in the evening council workers, road workers and bog workers, recognising official time, will be leaving their work one hour or one hour and a half before the farm worker. The farm worker, naturally, will be dissatisfied and will not be very anxious to continue on the farm. It is a very great hardship, too, on youngsters, and medical men have already recorded that it is a hardship getting them up at this hour in the morning. In some parts they have to travel miles to school, and in my district they have to travel across a bog for a couple of miles in the morning. In North Roscommon there are from two to five feet of snow. Nothing is clear except the principal bus routes and some of the main roads. It would be a definite hardship on children who have to travel to school in these conditions at such an early hour of the morning. But for the serious situation confronting the country I would strenuously oppose it, and I would like it to be known that when it comes up next year I will oppose it.
Question put and agreed to.