Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jun 1972

Vol. 72 No. 16

Dangerous Substances Bill, 1970: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Professor Kelly

I move amendment No. 1:

Before section 1 to insert a new section as follows:

"( ) No person shall export any explosive from the State into Northern Ireland, or conspire at or procure the bringing of any explosive into Northern Ireland by whatever route or means or from whatever source, unless such export, or such bringing of explosive into Northern Ireland shall, in respect of every individual consignment, have been in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister."

The House will remember that on the last occasion when this Bill was being discussed I pointed out that a very similar topic had been discussed by us when the Firearms Bill of last year was going through. On that occasion the Minister for Justice refused to entertain the idea that we ought to make it an offence for anybody in his jurisdiction.

to conspire or arrange for the exportation of a dangerous or deadly thing from this State into the North of Ireland or to conspire or arrange for or procure the exportation of a deadly thing from abroad into the North of Ireland even though it might not pass through our own territory over the border which Partition has erected.

That point of view did not commend itself to the Minister for Justice then. So far as I can gather from the Minister for Labour, on the Second Stage of this Bill it does not commend itself to him either.

This is why I felt I had to put down this amendment. I do not believe it ought to be lawful for somebody in this jurisdiction to connive at the import of a dangerous thing into the North of Ireland in the conditions which the North of Ireland has had to face over the last two or three years. When we have a Bill before us called the Dangerous Substances Bill it is our duty to ensure that no criticism can be levelled at us along the lines of saying that we have not done our duty in making sure that life and limb in the North of Ireland are as dear to us as life and limb in the Republic of Ireland.

That is why I drafted the proposed amendment and why I have submitted it to the House. Since I put this amendment down, I have been in contact with the people who manufacture explosives legitimately in this jurisdiction and I understand from them that every export of explosives which they make to the North of Ireland is done under licence from the British Home Office. Until Stormont was prorogued it would have been open to the Stormont Home Office to induce the British Home Office to suspend a licence. In other words, it is and was—I have to say this in fairness to the firm concerned and in fairness to the interests concerned—within the power of the Northern Ireland and British authorities to prevent, by means of withdrawing or refusing a licence, the importation of legitimately manufactured explosives into Northern Ireland from the Republic. To that extent I must concede that my amendment is drafted in a way in which, had I had that knowledge previously, I would not have drafted it.

If the export of explosives to the North of Ireland is governed by a licence which can be withdrawn at any time by the authorities which whether we like it or not, are in control de facto of the situation north of our Border, it would be superfluous for us to ask the Minister for Labour or any other Minister to license individual consignments of explosives over the Border. Instead of withdrawing this amendment I will leave it in on the basis that there is still an outstanding problem which the existence of a Northern Ireland licence or a British licence does not cover, namely, the possibility that a citizen of this State, a person resident within our jurisdiction, might try to arrange the importation of explosives into the North of Ireland by some other route—it could be, perhaps, direct by helicopter or by fishing smack.

My concern was to make sure that so far as my party are concerned, and I hope so far as this House is concerned, we would not let a Bill entitled the Dangerous Substances Bill go through without making sure that so far as was within our power our sundered brethren in the North of Ireland would realise that we took seriously the threat to the peace and safety of life and limb for all sides of the population, and for all classes and creeds we so often profess to be concerned about—even if the Minister was to make that point—in view of the knowledge which I have gained since I put the amendment down that the export from here to the North of Ireland of explosives is already sufficiently protected or controlled by the issue of licences from the authorities who are in control up there, nonetheless I think it ought to be wrongful and unlawful for anybody in this jurisdiction, or anybody who claims the shelter and protection of the laws of this State, to take it on himself to contrive the importation of deadly things into the North of Ireland by whichever route it may be, even if it is by helicopter, aircraft, baloon, fishing smack or any other means. I believe that ought to be an offence.

Even though it might quite easily be the case that we could have such a section on our Statute Book for 20 years and never successfully prosecute anybody for it, it would, in my view, show our anxiety to convince the people in the North of Ireland who differ from us in so many ways, ethnically and politically, that we regard the word "Ireland" as meaning something more than Twenty-six Counties and that we regard the word "Irish" as meaning something more than applying to Twenty-six Counties. That to me would be important. Even if we were merely to go through the motions of passing a section which I freely admit might not catch many offenders, I believe this House would be doing Ireland a favour by accepting my amendment.

I do not think any harm could be done by leaving it as it stands. Certainly, I believe that an impression will be made where it most needs to be made, among the Unionist population, among the people who are Irish according to our political cathecism but who have not been brought up in the same tradition as most of us have been and who have a different interpretation of the word "Ireland" than we have. We need to make an impression on them because we have been neglecting them for so long, and we might make that impression on them if we were to make sure so far as this Bill could do it that nothing deadly will go into their Six Counties. I do not care how legitimate or illegitimate their Border may seem to anyone in this House, nothing should be allowed to go into the Six Counties which could blow people apart, innocent as well as guilty, if we have the power to stop it.

That is the point that concerns me. Although I entirely understand the contention of the Minister for Labour that his job is basically to do a patching-up job on a code that might be broadly described as the Factory Acts code, I ask him, particularly as a man who in his capacity as a politician and as a human being, not as a Minister, comes from near the North of Ireland whether he would not be doing everybody in this Republic a service if he tried to adapt his Bill in such a way that this could be shown to the people in the North of Ireland as a signal that we wanted to do what we could to protect them.

I believe that by making it an offence to import explosives into the North of Ireland without a licence or to conspire or to procure the bringing of explosives into the North of Ireland, even if by another route other than the Border, he would be doing a good day's work. If the Minister were to acquiesce in this amendment or, perhaps, if he was to undertake to propose himself at the next Stage an amendment along similar lines, he would be doing all of us—I am trying to speak across party frontiers now—North and South, a great service.

Mr. O'Higgins

I should like to support this amendment. I am not sure that Senator Kelly is correct in his view that this amendment is rendered less necessary by reason of the fact that an import licence is necessary to import explosives into the North. That does not very materially affect the net point which Senator Kelly is making in favour of this amendment and that is the necessity for this Parliament, in this part of Ireland, to do something as effectively as we can to prevent the export to Northern Ireland of explosive substances.

Senator Kelly has very clearly and very ably put forward a number of reasons which would, I think, appeal not only to Members of this House but to the vast bulk of the people outside as to why an amendment on these lines should be put into the Bill. His arguments would be reinforced merely by reading Part II of the Bill. This Bill deals in a number of ways with explosive substances. Section 10 reads:

No person shall import any explosive except in accordance with a licence granted by the Minister.

In section 11, no person shall keep any explosive, except in accordance with conditions which are set out in the section. Subsection (3) of section 11 reads:

No person shall have any explosive in his possession unless it has been lawfully acquired in accordance with this Act...

and so on. In section 12, "No person shall sell or purchase any explosive"; in section 15, "No person shall manufacture any explosive", again with the exceptions that are set out here. The one thing we stop short of saying is that no person shall export explosives, except under the kind of control that Senator Kelly has suggested in his amendment. If it were no more than a gesture to put in a section which would prohibit the export of explosives, except under control, then in relation to Northern Ireland it would be well worth while making that gesture, and I think it could be very much more than a gesture.

At the moment—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—if this Bill becomes law, you cannot import, keep, have in your possession, sell, purchase or manufacture explosives, except under the controls that are set out in Part II of the Bill. The one thing you can do is export them, because there is no prohibition on exporting explosives. That appears to be an extraordinary flaw in the Bill, an extraordinary gap, an extraordinary loophole, to leave in this legislation when attention has been called to it. I could understand the argument that this is a kind of domestic tidying up operation in relation to safety procedures and so on. We are dealing with all sorts of things: importing, keeping, having in one's possession, purchasing, selling and manufacturing explosives. Why stop short of the one thing that can be really important in the present situation, that is, control on exporting?

Dr. West

I would like to support the reasons given by Senator Kelly and Senator O'Higgins. It might be argued that one could not export explosive substances without having contravened some of the other regulations under the Bill. There are two things to be said. Firstly, as Senator Kelly and Senator O'Higgins have pointed out, it is important to make it absolutely clear to the people in Northern Ireland what our position is in relation to the current situation in the North, what we think about people who operate, illegally, on either side of the Border, what we think of violence and what we think of the situation in which tons of explosive have exploded in Northern Ireland, killing hundreds of people and damaging millions of pounds of property. It is worth including amendments like this, if we make our position crystal clear, if it helps us to do this to the Unionist population.

The second point is that in relation to having in one's possession explosives, and therefore breaking the law—and you cannot export without already having explosives in your possession— I can envisage situations arising when a substance can be regarded as an explosive at one time or as an ordinary substance used for weed-killer or fertilisation in agriculture at another. Therefore, there can be situations in which an explosive substance is just being used for ordinary domestic regular purposes, and then, if it is mixed with another substance, it becomes explosive. One could have weed-killer in one's possession and by carefully mixing it with another substance it could become explosive and could be exported. One could then get round the law by doing the mixing just as one goes across the Border. I think if Senator Kelly's amendment were accepted these possibilities would be ruled out and we would be making absolutely clear to the Northern people our position on the whole of the explosives business.

Mr. Crinion

I feel I must speak on this amendment, as there is an explosives factory in my area. If anyone had been through this factory, as I have, and observed the conditions and safety regulations that are being kept at present, I do not think this amendment would have been put down. If you cannot find the products to make an explosive, how can you sell it? If you cannot buy the products, unless under licence, how can you sell the explosives afterwards? My experience of the factory has been that under the regulations in existence the explosives have to be moved from four different huts before the final product emerges. There are only four people allowed in each hut in order to enforce the regulations. The State has taken extra precautions in that the Garda force at Enfield station, which at one time was three of four gardaí, has now been increased to 16, with two sergeants. This is because of the presence of the explosives factory at Cloona, Enfield.

When one realises the safeguards taken, particularly when an amount of the product is going to Northern Ireland, no irregularity could occur. If you have a licence, and can buy the products for explosives only under licence, I consider that this amendment is not necessary.

Professor Kelly

I want to make it entirely clear, because Senator Crinion has raised this point, that in justice to the firm he mentions, I know perfectly well that this firm operate in a way which is utterly above suspicion of any kind. I do not want to be represented, or leave myself in a position where I could be represented, as suggesting that this firm were in any way doing anything which was not legitimate. I unreservedly accept that this firm are carrying on a legitimate business and that their dealings in the Republic and the North are in accordance with the law. I hope Senator Crinion will not misunderstand what I am trying to do. I am trying to ensure that, so far as this State is concerned, the exportation across the Border or the connivance by people within our jurisdiction at the importation by any other means to the North of a thing that can blow the people there to bits, is unlawful and a criminal offence. That is all I am concerned with.

I have a feeling, which the Minister for Labour foreshadowed in his reply to the Second Stage, that he will say that this is a matter for the Minister for Justice. I must repeat what I said then, even though the Minister has not had a chance to speak yet. It is not right for Departments to be working in isolation from each other. We ought to have one law about explosives, and I do not care which Minister brings it in. The Minister for Labour is not in a strong position when he brings in a Dangerous Substances Bill here, which deals with the very thing we are talking about which blows people to pieces, and says, "I cannot deal with that particular aspect you are talking about because the criminal end of this matter is for my colleague the Minister for Justice." I realise I have gone beyond what Senator Crinion said in introducing this particular dimension.

Minister for Labour (Mr. J. Brennan)

I am not going to quarrel with the motives which prompted the putting down of this amendment. As Senator Kelly anticipated, I must give the reply which I gave when winding up the Second Stage. This Bill is primarily and solely concerned with the health, welfare and safety of workers in the handling, production, storage, labelling and conveyance of explosives, petroleum and other dangerous substances. So many new substances have come on the market, which have outdated the legislation we have dealing with them, that it was necessary to make new legislation, to repeal some of the old legislation, to consolidate and bring up to date the regulations dealing with them. It has nothing to do with the criminal use of explosives. Even as a gesture to the people in the North, I do not want to change the theme of the Bill by adopting this amendment.

The importation of explosives into the North is controlled by their own legislation. They have their own means of dealing with it in any way they wish. We control the importation of explosives in this state and we can take powers to alter or amend the means by which they are handled or brought in. This Bill, for the purpose of safety controls in handling explosives, provides for certain precautionery measures. The controls which we exercise in this Bill are necessary if we are to know the whereabouts of dangerous explosives, who has them and the means by which they are used. When one looks into the measures which are taken here to provide for control one might think that we were aiming at the criminal side. How can one adopt other means for safety if they cannot control the actual explosives, petroleums and substances referred to?

We are not repealing the Explosives Substances Act, 1883, which is still in operation and which deals with the criminal use of explosives. As a member of the Government I accept my responsibility and agree that this Bill is inadequate to do some of the things it would be necessary to do. The Minister for Justice, who is primarily concerned with the legislation dealing with the criminal use of explosives, will introduce the necessary amending measures to bring that legislation up to date as soon as possible.

It is my task to look after the welfare, safety and health of the workers in so far as they are affected by dangerous substances. It would be wrong to have any duplication or overlapping of control; indeed one of the things that this Bill sets out to do is to concentrate all the necessary safety measures in one Minister. Up to now these have been the responsibility of other Ministers and even of local authorities. This Bill will remedy that and it makes resonably good provision. I am not quarrelling with the case made by the Senators in advocating that this would be a suitable gesture, but it is not appropriate to this Bill. For that reason I would ask Senator Kelly to withdraw this amendment. He will have an opportunity of dealing with this in the near future on another Bill.

Professor Kelly

I appreciate the Minister has spoken politely and reasonably about my amendment. I will withdraw it for one reason, and that is because I do not want the impression to be created that there is any difference between the two sides of the House in regard to our anxiety that blood should not be spilled in the North. Because the Minister asked me to withdraw it so reasonably and politely I feel I cannot say no to him.

Before I do so I must say that the Minister is a member of a Government with collective responsibility. I have had many differences with his Government, which is ostensibly committed —in case that is misinterpreted, let me say I believe that so far as the ruling segment is concerned—to producing peace in the North; but when I see the reactions and comments from the Northern Unionist population and their representatives on what goes on in the Republic I have to ask myself if we are doing enough to dispel their suspicions. If in the context of a Dangerous Substances Bill a Minister says "I understand that this is well meant but it is not my job", if I were a Northern Unionist I would say that this Minister belongs to a Government which is not taking seriously what we think ought to be taken seriously. I would say this Minister and his Government, although they have frankly admitted the principle of collective responsibility under which they operate, are not making an effort to do their best to prevent us from being blown to pieces by people who not only have no mandate to do so but never have looked or never would look for a mandate.

I must ask the Minister to go back to the Government of which he is a member and say to them that it is not enough to be running our Government and our Parliament in this day and age as though it were 1964 or 1944.

This is a situation on which the Government must keep their eye as to what is occupying not just the headlines but the consciousness of everybody, namely, what is going on here, when is the bloodshed going to stop, what can we do to help? Where does the responsibility lie in this regard?

I hope I have not been too partisan in this House lately, but my party have a good record in this regard. We have never equivocated about this. The amendment I am suggesting now is in line with our thinking all along: that we must not neglect any opportunity whatever of showing the people in the North of Ireland of all classes and creeds that we are concerned. I dislike all this talk about Protestants and Catholics, minority and majority. We talk about them as "our people" and they are described in our Constitution implicitly in such a way as to entitle me to speak about them like that.

We talk about them as though they were sitting here with us. If that is the case we owe them a duty, not just the Nationalists. We owe exactly the same duty to those who do not think in the Nationalist tradition. We are not doing the job we are here to do. I am speaking not just on behalf of Fine Gael; I am speaking for Fianna Fáil as well, I believe, and also for those who vote for Fianna Fáil and those who vote for Fine Gael when I say we are not doing this job if we treat the ordinary processes of government in 1972 as though the year were 1964. It is a different year and there are different problems. The ordinary processes cannot continue with honour to us unless they are conducted in such a way as to recognise that the problems are different. If I were a Northern Unionist and saw a Dangerous Substances Bill going through this House with no extra provision for the prevention of deadly things being sent to the North of Ireland in so far as I could stop them from being sent, I would say: "This is only more evidence, if I needed it, which I do not, that the Government in Dublin do not give a damn what happens to us."

Although I differ with the Government I believe they are concerned and would wish to stop bloodshed. If I were a Northern Unionist and were only going on what I saw in black and white, I would find this difficult to believe, because as Senator O'Higgins states everything about dangerous substances here is controlled, with the single exception of the export or the bringing of dangerous things into the North of Ireland, either over our own Border or by some other route. I understand the departmental divisions which impose on the Minister here tonight the necessity of stating he has got to keep to his own part of the field. If this were not 1972 I would not be on my feet at such a late hour trying to persuade him otherwise; but we have terrible problems and we will not solve them unless we disarm the suspicion and hatred which our neglect has done a great deal to fuel.

I am willing to withdraw the amendment because the Minister has been polite and reasonable. I should like to urge on him as a human being, as a Deputy for County Donegal, as a member of the Government, that it is not enough to continue ordinary governmental processes in the way they have been continued up to now. We must show we really care about these people North of the border of all classes and creeds. We must not be selective and anything we can do to disarm suspicion ought to be done.

I do not mean to rebuke Deputy Brennan as I know he is doing his best according to the lines which his Department consider appropriate. I withdraw the amendment, not under protest, but accompanied by a sincere plea to the Minister to represent to his colleagues in the Government that this is no time to stick to conventional departmental systems.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Nash

This section states that no person shall sell or purchase any explosives without certain precautions. I should like to know whether the Minister considered the possibility of explosives changing hands without sale or purchase, by gift or otherwise. I should like to see added to that "shall sell, purchase, deliver or accept delivery of". In section 17 it states that if explosives are to be delivered, they must be packaged in a certain way. There is no protection in regard to the mode of delivery once they are packaged. They can be delivered in a conveyance which is unsafe. The whole process of delivery may be a menace, not only to the workers delivering but to the general public. Because explosives can be given or received other than by sale or purchase, I should like to see "delivery or accept delivery of" inserted, if the Minister sees fit to do so. The person who would be delivering or accepting delivery would have to be a person licensed and, therefore, the person actually making the delivery would have to be licensed and approved by a superintendent of the Garda and his method of delivery would have to be licensed and approved.

Mr. J. Brennan

I do not consider the change suggested by the Senator would be necessary. He will find further on in the Bill that the possession, receipt and conveyance of explosives is amply covered. This is merely to ensure that people who habitually deal with purchasing and selling explosives are duly licensed. For the purpose of our being able to know when to enforce a regulation, illegal possession of explosives is covered in the Bill to some extent, but mainly this is a criminal matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 13 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 52.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and can be taken together by agreement.

Professor Kelly

I move amendment No. 2.

In subsection (1), line 31, to add at the end:

" ; or on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding one thousand pounds or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both such fine and such imprisonment."

The point of this amendment is to try to establish so far as the Oireachtas can do it that the offence of making an explosive without a licence is a very serious one. As I have said on the Committee Stage, obviously somebody who does it for a relatively innocent reason—for example a child experimenting making bangs although it is highly dangerous, would not be regarded as criminal or somebody who manufactures explosives without going to the trouble of getting a licence ought not naturally to be dealt with with the full rigour of the law. But somebody who manufacture an explosive in other circumstances is in a different category. I did call the attention of the House on the previous occasion when this Bill was under discussion two weeke ago to the relative leniency of the maximum penalties which section 52 provided for all the cases in which things declared unlawful in other sections of the Bill were to be penalised.

There are many of these and I am not pretending that amendments which I have put down would be appropriate to all of them. The one which I have particularly in mind is the manufacture of explosives, which is forbidden by section 15, or the importing of explosives, which is forbidden by section 10. I cannot imagine anyone importing or manufacturing explosives in the conditions which we have to face today with an innocent or relatively trivial motive. If there is such a person, a child or somebody who wants to save himself a few pounds by avoiding the necessity of going to the Minister for a licence, I would leave in the provision which the Minister has got in this Bill, namely, giving the District Court discretion to fine him a few pounds or, perhaps, let him off with a caution.

In a different kind of case the manufacture or import of explosives is a very serious offence. I dislike being pushed into a position of a public prosecutor or somebody who is looking for harsh penalties. If I may introduce a note of party politics into this, I fear that Fine Gael have been pushed into this position over the last year or so, in contexts like this, by the inertia of the Government. It is wrong to treat a potentially very serious and dangerous offence on the same footing as one would treat the manufacture of poteen——

Mr. O'Higgins

It might be explosive, too.

Professor Kelly

It is explosive in a different sense. It is wrong to treat it in a trivial way. Although the average member of the public might think that six months in prison or a fine such as section 52 provides is severe enough, related to other parts of the law it is a relatively lenient penalty. It is a conventional ceiling of the penalty which the District Court can impose.

My belief is that somebody who manufactures or imports explosives without a licence for a sinister reason ought not to be dealt with in that casual way. It is not out of an anxiety to be harsh on harmless people that I have introduced these amendments. It is because I believe that the offences envisaged by sections 15 and 18 are potentially very dangerous and serious ones. I have suggested these additions to section 52, namely, that on indictment if the Attorney General uses his discretion in order to direct the trial of an alleged offender by jury it should be within the discretion of the court to impose a much tougher sentence— up to two years imprisonment or up to £1,000 fine or, in the case of a repeated offence, up to £100 a day. That is what I have in mind. It is not the harmless offences, for example, the clandestine manufacture of gunpowder, which I indulged in myself as a child, that I have in mind. What I do have in mind is people who manufacture explosives in large quantities for more sinister reasons.

No doubt the Minister has been advised to say that this is adequately covered already by the Act of 1883 dealing with explosive substances. It is true that Act does punish the making of explosive with intent to cause injury. It also makes it an offence and punishable to make explosives under suspicious circumstances. I admit that in ordinary conditions the provisions of the Act of 1883, which are still in force here, would be sufficient. We have not got ordinary conditions here today. We have very special conditions. I am no admirer of the Minister for Justice. I have had differences with him in the past and I suppose I will have them again. But he said, very reasonably, that we are dealing with people who are advised as to their legal position in a much more sophisticated way than their forerunners were 30 years ago. The Act of 1883 does not go far enough to deal with the kind of people who might manufacture or import explosives here.

I agree that in section 4 the Act of 1883, by throwing the onus of proof on to a potential defendant, goes a long way. I concede that. But when I find we are being asked to pass a Dangerous Substances Bill which purports to prohibit the manufacture of explosives and attaches what is a relatively trivial penalty to it then I have to ask myself are we really facing up to the situation. Would it not be more sensible to say anyone who takes it on himself to make something which can destroy other person's lives or limbs is committing a potentially very dangerous and serious offence? If it is a child making a bit of gunpowder for a bang or firecracker or a quarrier who only wants to avoid the necessity of going to the Minister for a licence, let us let him off with a fool's pardon or a small fine.

The law would be improved if we attached a fairly serious penalty to the manufacture of explosives per se. Leave out the danger to life and limb or the auspicious circumstances, because these are things which would in the normal course of events be part of the State's case. If the State is unable to prove anything, the defendant gets off. In the normal conditions I would not press for a more severe criminal law or a more severe law of evidence in order to produce a larger number of court convictions. That is the wrong way to approach criminal law. But we are not in ordinary conditions these days. We are in unusual conditions. We are in a sense in a state of siege. We are spared the worst of it in Dublin. That is the reason I strongly urged the last amendment, which I withdrew in view of the Minister's appeal.

It would not disgrace the Minister or his Department if we were to concede that the offence which he is constituting in this Bill might of its nature be a very serious and dangerous offence. It would be by no means disgraceful to the Minister, or the Government, if he were to admit the possibility that an offence like that could be so serious that the Attorney General would say that it must go to a jury and the person, if found guilty, must suffer a very serious penalty and not merely be submitted to a district justice whereby an absolutely trifling penalty of a couple of pounds fine can be imposed.

The Minister knows perfectly well what I have in mind. It would be fitting and honourable to this Government if they were to strengthen the law in this regard. This is not alone a matter for us, but also for other Irish people. It would be worthwhile if we were to strengthen the law in this regard by treating the unlawful, unlicensed manufacture or importation of explosives as potentially very serious and dangerous offences.

Mr. J. Brennan

I must use the same argument against the proposed amendment as I did against the other one. Indictable offences would mainly relate to the criminal use of explosives and would not come under the enforcement of the provisions of this Bill. In such a case we would hand the offenders over to the Garda or the Department of Justice. We deal with them now under the 1883 Explosive Substances Act and the penalties under that Act go as high as 20 years penal servitude. This is much harsher than the Senator has proposed here. What we have in mind in this legislation are the normal circumstances dealing with the commercial use of explosives.

The Senator insinuated that one could not foresee people manufacturing explosives for anything other than criminal use. That is not our experience. In normal times an agricultural worker or farmer who wants to blow out the stump of a tree, instead of going to the trouble of purchasing gelignite, can combine a couple of substances which he may already have on the farm.

Professor Kelly

I did not say that.

Mr. J. Brennan

I thought the Senator insinuated it. This is the type of thing we would have in mind. The criminal use would not be dealt with under this Bill. It would be dealt with much more harshly under different legislation, for the time being the 1883 Act. The cobbler must stick to his last here, so I must keep this Bill for what it was originally introduced to do. I think the Senator has demonstrated his sincerity in regard to this.

Professor Kelly

May I pursue the figure of speech the Minister just used about the cobbler sticking to his last? My impression is that the affairs of this State are being run in such a way that the Minister does the heels and Deputy O'Malley does the soles of the shoes. That is not satisfactory.

Mr. O'Higgins

The whole Government are on their uppers.

Professor Kelly

I do not think the Minister properly understood what I was trying to say. He misunderstood the central point of it. Of course, I recognise that there are people whom he intends to catch by the offences which he is creating by this Bill. Some of these people do not understand the phrase "criminal". But the Minister keeps on saying that the criminal side would be dealt with by the Minister for Justice. He is creating offences by this Bill. This Bill is bristling with offences to which a penalty is attached and he admitted two weeks ago that it is impossible to draw a line to distinguish them.

Mr. J. Brennan

I did not say "impossible". The lines would be very close.

Professor Kelly

The lines would be very close. But the Minister has said that anybody manufacturing or importing explosives for criminal use —what I take him to mean by that is to injure other people or property— is deal with by a different code of legislation, namely, the 1883 Act. I should like to say to the Minister that the milder section in the 1883 Act, is section 4 (1) which says:

Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion, that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object shall unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object be guilty of felony...

There is a whole lot of law in the few words I have read out. It is possible for a defendent who is guilty of manufacturing explosives for a deadly object to get out by persuading a district justice that there is not enough evidence and that a reasonable suspicion might exist in regard to his intent.

In ordinary conditions, I believe that that is exactly how the law should work. A person should be able to say "there is not enough evidence to meet the requirements of the section". But we are not dealing with ordinary conditions. I agree with the Minister when he says that some people who manufacture explosives do so innocently. I have learned that from an outside source since the Minister and I last saw each other. I accept that unreservedly. Somebody like that is adequately dealt with by the section already in the Minister's Bill.

I am referring to someone who is not innocent, who equally cannot be caught under section 3 or section 4 of the 1883 Act but who could be caught under this Bill if the Minister would consent to amend it along these lines. I do not want to make an issue of it, although I know there are people in the Minister's party who are by no means as rock-solid on decency and humanity as most of my party are. I recognise that the dominant element in the Minister's party does wish for decency and humanity to reign in the Republic and in the North of Ireland. That is why the Minister is putting a pistol to my head asking me to withdraw amendments. I do not want to show a cleavage between the two sides of any House in this regard. I do not want to give the Government a "black eye". I know it is late at night and no one is listening anyway. I am reluctant to do it. That is the only reason I am prepared to withdraw these amendments. I honestly believe that there is substance in them and sense behind them.

I urge the Minister to go back to the Government and say that this is no time for Departments to be going along on their own as if nothing were happening in the outside world. It is time for a Government—any Government—even a Government with which I have as many faults to find with as this Government, to understand that they are facing a crisis which involves people to whom they have never given a thought before and to consider that every single thing they do and word they utter will have repercussions for them. That is the reason which formed all three amendments put down by me tonight. I withdraw these amendments only because I do not wish it to appear to the outside world that the vast majority of the Irish people, represented by the people who vote for us and even for the Minister's party, are in any way at loggerheads on what to me seem absolutely fundamental issues of humanity and decency.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Section 52 agred to.

Section 53 to 66, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

The Seanad adjourned at 11.20 p.m.sine die.