I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order:—
Winter Time Order, 1988.
Winter Time Order, 1988: Motion.
What would happen if we did not agree?
This order complies with the EC Fourth Council Directive on summer time. This is an instrument which seeks to har-monise the summer time period throughout EC member states. It is the fourth order of this type. The previous orders were approved by the House on 11 March 1981, 9 March 1983 and 12 March, 1986.
The principal effect of the order is that the summer time period will begin one week later in 1989 than is prescribed in the Standard Time (Amendment) Act, 1971 (No. 17 of 1971). That means we will have a similar period of summer time in 1989 as we have had for the past eight years. A minor consequence of the order will be that the time of change from winter time to summer time, and vice versa, will be 1 o'clock in the morning Greenwich Mean Time rather than 2 o'clock as provided for in the 1971 Act. The actual summer time period in 1989 will be from 26 March to 29 October.
The reasoning behind this order and the three previous similar orders, is that the Commission considers that the harmonisation of the summer time period in the member states would help the efficiency of transport, communications, commerce and contacts generally throughout the Community.
Discussions with a view to standardising the summer time provisions in EC member states have been in train for several years. There are various problems including, of course, the fact that natural time in this country and in the United Kingdom is substantially different from that in many of the continental member states. While the Commission would prefer a common date for beginning and ending summer time in all member states, it acknowledges that all the elements necessary for determining the date for the end of summer time are not available at present. The Commission, therefore, are prepared to continue the current arrangement in 1989. This, in effect, means that the summer time period in 1989 in the continental member states will end one month earlier than in Ireland and United Kingdom, that is, on the last Sunday of September instead of the last Sunday in October.
This is a most favourable arrangement from this country's point of view as we have always favoured as long a summer time period as possible and the public, when consulted about the provisions of the Standard Time (Amendment) Act 1971, were in favour of having our summer time period synchronised with that of the United Kingdom. Continental member states have always favoured a shorter summer time period.
So far there is no directive in force for the period after 1989 but, in accordance with the terms of the Fourth Directive, the Council must adopt such a directive by 1 January 1989.
Nobody in their right mind would oppose this order, but I would like to put one question to the Minister. Why is it that the 1971 Act cannot be amended in such a way as to provide for this annual change which takes place? This is the fourth year in a row where we have had to go through this. It is an unnecessary waste of time. It appears to me that the 1971 Act should be amended in order to encompass this change on an annual basis in order to bring us in to line with what is happening in Europe. Apart from that, it is obviously something which is highly commendable from the point of view of energy saving, even from the point of view of the tourist industry, where the longer days are important, and for a variety of other reasons, bringing us into line with continental Europe.
I would like to support Senator O'Toole on the question of amending the Principal Act. I would also like to ask the Minister the basis for his statement in the penultimate paragraph of his speech where he said that the public, when consulted about the provisions of the Standard Time (Amendment) Act, 1971, gave a certain view. I am curious to know when that consultation took place and what was the result.
As Senator O'Toole has said, one would not wish to give the impression that one was opposing this motion, but I, too, am a little perplexed about some areas of the Minister's speech; for example, statements that all the elements for determining the date for the end of summer time are not available at present. I have been following the debate on this issue within the European Community over the past 18 months to two years in a rather peripheral way. Perhaps the Minister could clarify exactly what this Government's position is in the context of these ongoing discussions.
Also if my information is correct, it seems that we in the western part of the European Community may be forced ultimately to harmonise with the continental time systems, which might cause enormous difficulties, for example, for the farming community in this country. I know that there are plans afoot in the United Kingdom for concessions to be made in this area. I am anxious for the Minister to clarify the Government's position in relation to the ongoing discussions at European Commission level.
In relation to the 1971 Act, in view of the fact that the discussions on harmonisation are ongoing and have been so for some time and a decision has not yet been reached, we consider it an unnecessary and a highly inappropriate procedure to adopt, to change an Act to take account of the current situation before the harmonisation discussions are completed and then have to introduce further legislation to take account of the directives or decisions arising from those discussions.
On the second question, the basis of the statement of consultation, I understand that public notices appeared asking people to give their views and views were expressed in that manner in response to these requests.
The third question was from Senator Mooney in relation to the Government's position on harmonisation. I would refer to that part of my opening remarks where I said that we here in Ireland — and that means the Government — are maintaining the same stance, that we would prefer and we will insist in so far as we can, on maintaining the longest possible Summer Time. That is in the opening statement and that is our position.
I do not want to be difficult about this but I do think it an undesirable practice that a Minister should come in and make a statement about widespread consultation without indicating the nature of the consultation, the result of the consultation and when it took place, especially when it appears that some sort of public notices were posted and people were asked to reply. I am not asking for the information now but I do think it is undesirable that a general statement like this be made when the evidence for it is not put forward.
I would like to say that this seems to me to be a small technical adjustment and I do not think it is a matter on which there need be a very wide-ranging debate. However, I think I am right in saying that Members of this House did not receive any substantial briefing material in advance of this notice appearing in the Order Paper and that makes it difficult for us to appreciate precisely any hidden implications there may be and makes it quite difficult to talk with any seriousness.
If I am correct in this — perhaps such an item was missed by me in the internal post simply through the fact that there is such a large volume of correspondence — I would like, in future, if for example, even a brief statement such as the Minister has provided the House with today, could be made available to Members in advance of such discussion as we are having.
Do I take it then from the response of the Minister — he did not say this — that it would be the intention of the Department to introduce amending legislation after the harmonisation talks have been completed? That was really the point of my question, that we would not have to look forward to doing this on an annual basis. Do the Department intend bringing in amending legislation following on an agreement on the harmonisation of a standard time?
In reply to Senator Manning, the script says that the public were consulted about the provisions. I did not give all the details of the methods used but in deference to the subsequent question, I will endeavour to get all the details as to how that information was compiled, from whom it came and so forth, and we will let the Senator have it.
In regard to the further point made by Senator O'Toole, when a directive finally emanates from the discussions going on on harmonisation, I feel that will be the time for us to introduce whatever legislation may be required. If and when the harmonisation discussions are finalised and if it is necessary to introduce legislation, as I indicated earlier, then we will do that. We see it as unnecessary to introduce legislation now and then have to do something similar in a short time again. I am sure that is the point the Senator is making.
Question put and agreed to.