Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 Jul 1971

Vol. 70 No. 13

Standard Time (Amendment) Bill, 1971: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Justice (Mr. O'Malley)

The purpose of this Bill is to provide for a period each year during which the time for general purposes will be Greenwich Mean Time. During the rest of the year, standard time, one hour in advance of Greenwich Mean Time, will operate. The period of Greenwich Mean Time proposed in the Bill is the period from the Sunday following the fourth Saturday in October to the Sunday following the third Saturday in March, but if that is Easter Sunday the period will end on the Sunday following the second Saturday in March. In the present year, however, it is proposed to change to Greenwich Mean Time on the 31st October, which is the Sunday following the fifth Saturday in that month. Provision is made to allow 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 specified years or, save in relation to the coming winter, to prescribe that there shall be no period of winter time either generally or in a specified year or specified years.

Until the enactment of the Standard Time Act, 1968, Greenwich Mean Time was standard time but there was a period each year during which, in accordance with the Summer Time Act 1925, the clock was advanced. The Standard Time Act, 1968, provided, in effect, summer time all the year round. What this Bill proposes is that we should revert to the position that obtained up to the enactment of the 1968 Act.

The Bill, if enacted, will enable us to keep our time in line with that in Britain and the Six Counties, where there will be a reversion to Greenwich Mean Time on 31st October, with provision for a period of summer time, during which time will be one hour in advance of Greenwich Mean Time. When the British decision to revert was taken, my Department asked public bodies and organisations for their views as to whether our law should be changed to permit of this country synchronising with Britain and the general public were invited by advertisements in the newspapers to give their opinions also. The weight of representative opinion is in favour of our keeping in line with Britain and the Six Counties.

The Summer Time Committee who examined our time system and reported in 1941 were in favour of having the clock advanced during the period from the first Sunday in April to the first Sunday in November on purely domestic considerations. They also thought that the preservation of time parity with Great Britain and Northern Ireland— in the interests of communications and inter-State business—was highly desirable.

In the Dáil some Deputies referred to the report published by An Foras Forbartha in October, 1969, on the subject of the effect on traffic accidents of the change to standard time. While it is true that the report's findings tend to show that the change to standard time all the year round may have had a beneficial effect on accident occurrence, I think it only fair to point out that the road safety campaign conducted in connection with the change undoubtedly played a large part in the matter.

The Bill provides in effect for synchronisation with British time but the approach is different, in that the Bill does not propose to change the position whereby Greenwich mean time plus one hour is standard time ; instead it proposes that the period during which Greenwich Mean Time is proposed to operate be called the period of winter time. That period, as proposed in the Bill, is substantially shorter than the period during which Greenwich Mean Time plus one hour will obtain and it is logical to maintain Greenwich Mean Time plus one hour as standard time: it is, incidentally, the standard time in Western Europe generally. The Bill does not affect the position whereby premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor are permitted to remain open during the period from mid April to early October. Subsection (2) of section 1 of the Standard Time Act, 1968, provides that an enactment expressed to operate during a period of summer time is to be construed as operating during the period I have mentioned.

The Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, provides for later opening of licensed premises on week nights during a period of summer time and the intention in 1968, when the concept of summer time for general purposes was being abolished, was to preserve the status quo in the case of the provisions in the Intoxicating Liquor Acts, on the very good ground that any change of substance in those Acts should be effected in an Intoxicating Liquor Act and not in a Time Act. At the conclusion of the debate on the Bill in the Dáil I was asked by Deputies to consider the desirability of amending the provision so as to synchronise the period during which later opening is permitted with the period of standard time that will obtain if the proposals in the Bill are enacted. I have done so, but I adhere to the view that any change of substance in the Intoxicating Liquor Acts is proper to an Intoxicating Liquor Bill. I am, in any case, not aware of any demand from the trade or the public for an extention of the period by a month in the Spring and by three weeks in the Autumn, which is what synchronisation would involve.

In conclusion, I should like to express the hope that the Seanad will view this as a non-contentious Bill, which is being introduced because it reflects the wishes of the people as a whole.

Mr. O'Higgins

I have no objection to this Bill. It is only a few years since the last change was made in order to keep in line with the position in England with regard to summertime and wintertime. It seems a little bit odd that inside three years we decide to reverse the procedure. I had a quick look over the Dáil discussion on this Bill and I see that Deputy Dr. Garret FitzGerald was able to do a fairly close analysis of the Second Reading speeches made by the Minister when the 1968 Bill was being introduced, and of the Second Reading speech made by the present Minister on the introduction of this Bill. The only real alteration between the two speeches is that the figures are reversed. On the last occasion the Minister made the case why the change should be made. Now, three years later, the Minister finds himself in the position of making the case why the change should be reversed. Of course, the same speech would be appropriate on each occasion, provided that the necessary changes were made in it. Where it is in the affirmative, on the next occasion it is necessary to change it to a negative.

However, I am aware, as are all Senators, that since the 1968 change was brought about, there has been a lot of dissatisfaction expressed, particularly by parents of young children. Children of tender years were required to wend their way to schools in the pitch dark. As a parent of young children, I myself felt that there was a great deal of validity in arguments which were put up as to why we should revert to the old system, particularly having regard to the position of children going to school in the early hours of the morning in the dark.

I know that the case is being made that the change in 1968 resulted in a fairly considerable reduction in road accidents during the evening period. That is a matter that should be weighed very carefully in deciding to change back again to the old system. The Minister has said—and his answer to this argument satisfies me to some extent—that, while it is true that there was a reduction in road accidents during the evening period following the change, it is also true that there was a vigorous road safety campaign undertaken. The reduction in the number of accidents during that period may well be a test of the effectiveness of the road safety campaign, but it is a factor that should be taken into account.

I am rather glad to see this Bill being introduced. When we are following the British so much nowadays as regards the Common Market and a number of other things, it is probably just as well that we should be able to bid them the same time of the day.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

In concluding his introductory speech, the Minister said in the last paragraph:

In conclusion, I should like to express the hope that the Seanad will view this as a non-contentious Bill, which is being introduced because it reflects the wishes of the people as a whole.

When the Minister was uttering those words he must have been speaking with his tongue in his cheek. I do not think that this Bill is being introduced because it expresses the wishes of the people. It is being introduced here to amend a Bill that was first introduced— the Standard Time Bill, 1968—to follow the pattern that was then set when the British changed to standard time. Because, some months ago, the British have amended that piece of legislation, we must follow suit. It is much nicer to use a phrase that it reflects the wishes of the people as a whole rather than to admit that, whether or not it reflects the wishes of the people, we are changing or amending the 1968 legislation because the British have amended their 1968 legislation.

I have a very open mind on this. There was much discussion during the period in which this piece of legislation was in operation. I agree with Senator O'Higgins that parents of young children, especially in rural areas, were rather perturbed at the early hours and the darkness in which their children had to travel to school, or to places where they would be picked up by the school bus. In many cases children had to travel one mile or 1½ miles on very busy roads, especially close to the city. It was a cause of anxiety to parents that those children should be on the roads so early in the morning, and naturally they were perturbed.

However, there is another side to question. We shall have darkness setting in one hour earlier as a result of the change. There are many areas where the school bus will not be picking up children until after dark and these children will have to wait around a town or village to be picked up by the bus and taken to their homes. It really cuts both ways.

I agree that this is non-contentious legislation and should not take up the time of the House. Two weeks ago the Leader of the House told us, when Senator Robinson and other Senators challenged the Order of Business in regard to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, that the Government were so anxious to get very important legislation through that he had not time to be bothered with that Bill. I regret to say that seven days later they did find time and that Bill was taken off the Order Paper at a time when it was impossible for four of the Labour Senators to be present. I should not like to accuse the Leader of the House of sharp practice, but I felt that advantage was taken of the fact that we were not present. I do not intend to delay the House on this, because if the Government and the Leader of the House are so anxious to dispose of the important legislation the sooner we dispose of it the better. This Bill is not very important; we are just following the British pattern.

Ruairí Brugha

There is no need to take up much time with this Bill. First of all, there is nothing wrong with adjusting our time to synchronise with British time, purely as a matter of convenience, if nothing else, because of the very large cross-channel traffic of different kinds. A fair number of people will agree that the experience of the past few years has been that the need to have to hurry to work or to school tended to create a considerable degree of tension which is undesirable. One may say, leaving aside the safety campaign, that there were accidents before this order came in. People are not usually in such a hurry home as they are when trying to get to their offices or schools. The experience of people who have spoken to me over the last two years has been that having to drive or cycle to work in darkness or the experience of children having to rush to school in darkness has not had a very pleasant affect on them generally. The change provided in the Bill is more practical and more suitable to our needs, particularly in urban areas where there is an extraordinary increase in traffic.

I agree with Senator Jack Fitzgerald in regard to the children in the evening waiting around for school buses. On balance, the overall effect should be an improvement and it should have general approval in the country.

Mr. Russell

As most of the Senators have indicated their agreement with the Minister, the Bill is largely non-contentious. I suppose in about two or three years' time, when we revert again to the current arrangement, the Bill will be equally non-contentious and I am sure the then Minister will be able t persuade this and the other House t that effect.

It is a Bill to revert to the pre-1968 situation. That situation came about because Britain decided to abolish winter time or, as it is called in many parts of rural Ireland, old time. At that time, on reading some reports of the discussions in the House of Commons, there seemed to be a great deal of apathy about the change. The pressure largely came from the Scottish Highlands where the rural population were seriously concerned about the change. I presume that on this occasion the pressure is coming mostly from regional areas. But I am concerned about the arguments advanced three years ago in relation to the Common Market and the arguments advanced today in relation to the necessity to synchronise with the change in Britain.

I agree with Senator Brugha that, if it is good policy to synchronise with some English legislation, I do not think we should be in the slightest bit embarrassed by making the change. But the hypocrisy which goes on from time to time encouraging people to believe that these changes originate in our own country when they really originate in the House of Commons is nauseating. We should be quite frank and straightforward about this and say that, if it is good policy for this country, we should fall in line with British practice in certain things, but not in all things. We have shown a degree of independence in regard to our bank holiday weekends, but whether it is a good or bad thing I would not like to say. Personally, I do not think it is a good move, but that is a matter of opinion.

Perhaps the Minister might give some indication of the change in thinking in regard to the question of the EEC. The then Minister for Justice, Deputy Moran, in the Seanad three years ago, made a very strong case in favour of our synchronising with what he described as being the general practice in Western European countries and said we should endeavour to align our time schedules with Western European times.

Now, three years later, I suggest we are much closer to entering the Common Market; in fact, I am sure most of the House would regard it as almost a foregone conclusion. I wonder why we have not continued to advocate synchronising with Western Europe in this regard? Is it that the arguments in favour of synchronising our times with Great Britain are now stronger than they were three years ago? I know that there have been substantial changes in the movement of traffic between the two islands and that may be the reason. Another reason which I think is a valid one in this regard—it was mentioned in the other house—is that we should, as much as possible, synchronise with practices in the North of Ireland. Anything, even a comparatively unimportant measure such as this, that creates a further division between north and south should be resisted. Whatever about Great Britain and their practices we should move as often as possible in as much of our legislation with what is the practice in the North of Ireland.

The British Act of 1968 was for a specified period of three years. We rushed in without setting out any limit to the period in which we were going to follow the new legislation. Having hind sight, which is an easy thing for a politican to have, it migh! have been wiser to see how the experiment went in England before we decided to take the plunge here. However, we are apparently satisfied with the British experience and our own to change back again.

I have a point which is not perhaps of any great importance but I shall mention it. On both occasions, both Ministers, Deputy Moran, three years ago and the present Minister, Deputy O'Malley, assured the House that these changes are being made with the support of the majority opinion. I wonder is it really majority opinion, because the response to the advertisement which was issued was very disappointing. It would not be very hard to start a protest to reverse the terms of the present Bill again. However, leaving aside these considerations, I think that the measure is, in general, one in the right direction. We must fall in line with the practice in Britain in this regard anyway. It is a sensible Bill. I agree with the other speakers who said that the sooner we get it through the House and into practice the better.

Perhaps this is an old-fashioned idea but I think it is a pity that it was not found possible to synchronise the licensing laws with the changes from summer time to winter time. Many of us remember, over the years, that the changes synchronised. There may be reasons why the Minister could not do it. There is a difference of only a few weeks in it. It is a pity that closing time could not coincide, as it did not so many years ago, with the changes from new time to old time and vice versa.

I should like to ask the Minister if I am correct in assuming that the changes in the times in this country are exactly the same, day for day, as they are in Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Would the Minister give us some indication as to what are the winter and summer times that are in general practice in Western Europe— the EEC countries ? This information would be helpful. Do those times apply to all countries on the Continent ? I understand that the Italians have different times to the rest of Europe. If this is so it would indicate that there is room for diversification in times within the EEC, just as there is outside it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I am sorry to note that we still have people with an inferiority complex. They seem to think that because something happens in Great Britain and happens here also we have followed in the footsteps of the British. It is as if it were a crime and something to be ashamed of. I wish people who think like that would get it into their heads at long last that, if something good is done in some other country which could be applied to us in our circumstances, and if we copy or imitate it, as they put it, there is nothing wrong in this, nothing to be ashamed of. If Mao Tse Tsung in the People's Republic of China, for instance, discovers some new method by which he makes the soil more productive than it has been in the past and if we can get the know-how of how he did it and we imitate this, there is no reason why people should say we are imitating the Communists in Red China. If Kosygin discovers some better way of reaping the harvest of the seas which we have not yet come up with, just because the Russians have discovered that and we happen to copy it, there is no reason to be ashamed of that either. People should not say that because it did not originate here it is something we should be afraid to talk about and imitate.

This legislation is good. I do not think Senator Jack Fitzgerald or any others who seem to doubt that the people want this change are in touch with the real wishes of the people. My experience of speaking to many people in all walks of life during the period when we had this darkness at dawn and darkness in the evening was that there was very strong criticism of all concerned with inflicting that atrocity on them. Apart altogether from the interests of the children, my impression of the views of the people was that they were very strongly against that proposition and would be glad to get rid of it. The Bill conveniences us in many ways in our trade relationships and that to me is a good and an important thing in the position we are in today.

With regard to Senator Fitzgerald's allegation about taking some item off the agenda last week in the absence of the Labour Party, I do not remember that the Labour Party showed any great interest in the item which was on the Order Paper. I do not remember any Member of the Labour Party speaking about it or intervening in the discussions which we had during the past few months. I do not think anything unfair was done to the representatives of the Labour Party here and I would remind Senator Fitzgerald that there is a Bill on the Order Paper, the Report Stage of which is fixed for today, which, if his insinuation were correct, could have been taken in the absence of the Labour Party at the Congress last week but which was postponed in deference to their wishes and therewith met their convenience. The Senator was entirely wrong in his assumption that there was any attempt at sharp practice because the Labour Party were absent. On the few occasions when the full strength of the Labour Party are present they would have no effect on the majority vote in the House anyway.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

On a point of explanation.

An Cathaoirleach

I allowed the Senator to make a remark which is, strictly speaking, not relevant to this Bill.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

I will settle for that for the moment.

Mícheál Cranitch

Fáiltímse roimh an mBille seo agus ní gan chúis. Ba thrua ar fad é gur athraíomar ár gcóras féin in aon chor i 1968, ach ní docha go raibh dul as againn ós rud é go raibh cúrsaí tráchtála agus cúrsaí gnótha i gceist. Ní dóigh liom féin gur oir an córas ama a tugadh isteach i 1968 dúinn in aon chor mar táimidne ar imeall thiar na hEorpa. Tá Éire suite idir 5½º agus 10½º fad domhanda thiar. Ar an adbhar san, an córas sin a cuireadh i bhfeidhm ní bheadh sé oiriúnach dúinn. Ní bheadh sé oiriúnach dúinn go mbeadh an córas ama céanna in oirthear na hEorpa agus in iarthar na hEorpa. Baineadh triall as ar feadh trí mbliana agus buíochas le Dia go bhfuil ciall ceannaigh, mar a dearfá, tagaithe ar muintir na Breataine agus buíochas mór le Dia go bhfuilimid chun dul thar nais go dtí an córas a bhí i bhfeidhm.

I heartily welcome this piece of legislation because the change made three years ago was unfortunate to the extent that, first of all, it did not suit our country and did not suit Britain because both countries are too far west in Europe. That is the basis of the whole argument and is possibly something neither the British nor ourselves realised at the time. However, one learns by mistakes and I am sure that everybody both in Britain and here would be happy to return to the old system. We are situated between 5½ and 10½ degrees west longitude and a system which might be desirable in central or eastern Europe certainly would not be suitable here.

This system introduced in 1968 inflicted great hardship on the school children and also inflicted great hardship on their parents. The question of getting out on cold, dark, frosty mornings, travelling long distances either on foot, on bicycle or by car, posed great problems. I join, with Senator Ó Maoláin who said that the people are delighted with this change. They have waited for it for three years, and I hope, as long as we live anyhow we will never depart from this particular system.

Mr. A. O'Brien

It is a remarkable thing that some people have the knack of always being right. If they decide in Britain to have summer time in operation at a certain time and we do the same thing and if, having tried this for three years, Britain decides not to extend summer time and we follow their example within a few months, all this strikes me as being more than coincidence. Anybody who draws attention to that should not be accused of having an inferior complex.

Whether we have daylight or darkness does not depend on our position at the extreme western edge of Europe; it depends on the tilt in the earth's axis and the position of the sun over the Tropic of Capricorn at certain dates in the year. If that tilt in the earth's axis was not there, we would have 12 hours of daylight in all parts of the world, irrespective of whether we were west or east of a given meridian at any particular time, just as they have along the equator. These references then are not relevant.

I cannot understand why both the British and ourselves made the same calculation with regard to daylight hours. At one stage of the measurement we have a date which is selected close to the Spring Equinox, the second Saturday in March, which is close to the period of 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness. At the other end of the measurement we go five weeks past the Autumnal Equinox from the 22nd September to the 31st October. I am at a loss to know how we both simultaneously, and without any question of inferiority complex, arrived at the same thing. We pick a Spring day which is close to the period of 12 hour daylight and 12 hour darkness, the second Saturday of March, and when it comes to the Autumnal Equinox of 12 hours daylight and 12 hours darkness the British have decided on five weeks past that and we do the same thing. I think that is something more than a coincidence.

Minister for Justice (Mr. O'Malley)

I should like to thank the Seanad for their reception of the Bill. I think it is generally recognised that the Bill is necessary and desirable and I do not think that there has been any serious criticism of it or of any provisions kn it.

There is one point which I should like to make with regard to what has been said. A lot of stress has been laid on the allegation that the Government are changing simply because Britain has decided to change. The fact is that the Government, as I said in my opening speech, are guided by public opinion in this country on this point. They are guided by what the majority of people in the country feel about it. The majority of people here feel as they do possibly because Britain's change caused them to feel that way, but Britain's change does not automatically mean that we follow them. If the majority of the people in this country felt that it was unwise or not in their best interests to make this change the Government would not make it.

Senator Russell mentioned that he was disappointed at the small response to the advertisement which my Department published. In a sense I agree with him. There was a comparatively small response. The reason possibly was that most people regarded it as so obviously in our best interests to make the change back to the pre-1968 position that they took it for granted that this would be done. We possibly got a proportionately larger number of people replying who did not, in fact, want that change, in the sense that they were not proportionately representative of feeling in the country as a whole. I think that is the position, because while the representative organisations who replied to the advertisement and circular letter which we sent out were very predominantly in favour, almost exclusively, in fact bar just a few, the response from private individuals was somewhat different in that it was only about 53-47 pre cent in favour of the change. One got the impression that it was those who objected to the proposal who were more likely to write in. I think it is worth making the point here again that possibly the strongest objectors to the present system and those who are, therefore, most strongly on favour of reversion to the pre-1968 position are the trade unions, who were very strongly of that frame of mind and still are.

There was an inquiry also from Senator Russell as to what the position is with regard to time in Western Europe generally. The position is that for all practical purposes all the Western European, EEC, countries, plus a number of others who are not in the EEC, have the same time, with the exception of Italy, which for four months of the year, puts the clock forward an hour in summer. It has its own summer time. Otherwise they have what is called Central European Time, which is the same as our present standard time, throughout the entire year. Italy is the only exception. Italy is one of the most easterly of the Western European countries using what is called Central European Time. She has found that it is in her own best interests to go forward an hour in the summer. We may well find, on our entry into the EEC, that it is in our best interests, because, as has been pointed out here today, we are the most westerly country in Europe to have a different time for part of the year. We are by far the most westerly of the ten, that I shall call EEC countries, in other words, the six members and the four applicants. Since Italy has successfully operated for part of the year at least, her own time because, due to her geographical position, it suited her, I see no reason why we should not operate either for the whole or part of the year a different time from the EEC countries generally. It is a question of trying, when we get in, to balance up what the advantages and the disadvantages are. There are obvious advantages, which I need not detail to the House, in having the same time all round in the ten countries in the EEC as it would then be. Equally, there must be some advantages, at least in the most westerly country, which would obviously find itself least suited to this standard time, in having a time of its own for at least part of the year.

Italy, at the other side, has found hat this is beneficial and we might well find it beneficial. In that connection it is interesting to recall once again the report in 1941 of the Summer Time Committee, which was set up to inquire into the whole question. As part of the report they brought in a recommendation which said that, if all other things were equal, and if we did not have to take account of the time kept by our various neighbours, commercial partners, and so on the ideal situation for Ireland would be "the following". They then went on to recommend the position which, broadly speaking is what this Bill proposes. They felt that from all points of view if outside influences were left out of account this would be the most satisfactory. It is very satisfactory to find that this Bill tallies very closely with what their recommendation at that time was as being something that was in the interests of the Irish people as a whole.

Mr. Russell

Would the Minister indicate the dates on which the changes take place here?

Mr. O'Malley

I understand that the only change that takes place is in Italy. The period for which they change is four months in the summer. It is not stated in the publication from which I am getting my information but I would assume it would be the months of June to September, inclusive. All the other European countries have adopted the time technically known as "zone minus one" which corresponds to our standard time. There is a lot of technical information on the matter in the British White Paper, dated October, 1970, which contains a review of British Standard Time and is published by the Stationery Office in London. I do not think that any other points arose, but if Senators have any inquiries—

Mr. Russell

Might I just make one point about coinciding the licensing laws, as in days gone by, with summer and winter time. Is that out of the question?

Mr. O'Malley

I considered that, as I mentioned in my opening speech, and as I undertook to do in the Dáil. I find the position would be that you would lengthen what we call the "half eleven" opening by about six weeks taking the spring and autumn together. In practice there is no demand, that I can see, for that. There is certainly no demand from publicans and I do not think there is any great demand from the public. In fact, the view of the majority of publicans is that they would be opposed to any extension of the period of late opening. Senators may be under the misapprehension that summer time and the longer opening for licensed premises always coincided. That is not so. It certainly was not so in earlier years, but in more recent years the period during which it was not so was the period from 1960 to 1962. Under the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1960, the longer hours were fixed for the months of June to September, inclusive, which was only a four-month period. This was found by 1962 to be insufficient. It was acknowledged that it was insufficient and the opportunity was taken in the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962, to extend the period of longer opening hours from the four months fixed in 1960 to the period of official summer time. There was a liberal extension at that time and there were complaints that the extension was too great. I frankly do not see that there is any demand to extend it at this time. One of the principal reasons for extending it was to assist the tourist industry, but the number of tourists which we would have in early March or late October would be minimal and would have very little effect. In any event the tourists who are here at this time of the year would tend not to be out until comparatively late at night as they would in the middle of the summer and the problem about their being able to get a drink would not arise to any extent.

Mr. Russell

Do we coincide exactly with British standard time now?

Mr. O'Malley

We do as it stands, but Senators will notice that in future years it will be open to the Minister for Justice to make an order specifying a particular period. That order would have to be approved by a motion in each House of the Oireachtas.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment, received for Final Consideration and passed.