Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Jul 1992

Vol. 422 No. 5

Foreshore (Amendment) Bill, 1992: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Ireland is surrounded by unrivalled expanses of natural beaches which form a fitting setting for the emerald gem. Our heritage of sands, sand dunes and cliff systems and the ecological systems they support is in our care. It is our privilege as well as our duty to preserve our heritage intact, to hand it on to our children and, in turn, to their children.

In introducing this Bill I should like to thank Opposition spokespersons for their support and co-operation in having it brought forward quickly, before the summer recess. Towards the end of the year there will be a much larger, substantial Bill introduced but at this stage we considered it important to take powers to enable us act in this area quite urgently.

It is my aim under the provisions of this Bill to emphasise the value of this wonderful resource of ours for the benefit of all people who know and use our beaches to so that neither thoughtlessness nor greed will spoil them. I am sure the very substantial penalties provided for in this Bill will act as a real deterrent to those who would despoil our sands.

When the original Act was passed in 1933 the maximum fines of £5 and £10 were regarded as substantial, if not very substantial, which they were. I might illustrate what the purchasing power of money was in those days. For example, a full glass of whiskey cost one shilling, or 5p; 20 cigarettes cost half a penny and a pint of plain porter cost seven old pence, less than three new pence. Wages were equally modest in that a tradesman could expect £3 2s. 6p. per week, that, in today's money, is £3 12½p.; a factory worker could earn six old pence, 2½ new pence per hour. Therefore, the House will see that, when these rates were set, the value of money was quite different.

The new penalties being provided for in this Bill are up to £1,000 and six months' imprisonment on summary conviction and up to £200,000 — £100,000 for the first offence and up to £200,000 for a second or subsequent offence — and five years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment. Therefore, it will be seen that they are substantial, tough penalties, but are necessary to underline the message that we have a valuable asset we must preserve and safeguard. In setting these penalties it was necessary to consider much more than inflation. For example, in 1933, two men with shovels, a horse and cart would have made only small inroads into any beach but modern earth-moving machinery can change a landscape physically in hours. There is need now for the Minister to have at his disposal a fast and effective means of protecting our seashore from the pillaging of sand and gravel. I must emphasise that this Bill will not interfere with any legitimate use of the shore. In particular, there will be no change in the existing patterns of seaweed harvesting, which is particularly important along our west coast.

I have concentrated thus far on the substantial increases in penalties for contravening prohibitory orders and notices. I might now go on to deal with the matter of disturbance of the seashore, a new concept I have introduced because it was very clear to me that taking beach material from the shore is not the only way of damaging our beaches. For example, the sheer weight of heavy equipment can destroy vegetation. Once the root systems break down, the sand is at risk of being eroded by the elements. This takes me back to my early days in agriculture when I studied eco-systems, the performance of roots in various conditions, including visits to places like Dollymount to see the effects of the marram grass. Circumstances also arise when concentrated traffic by lighter vehicles would do untold damage not only to the seashore flora but also to the fauna. By the prohibition of specified disturbance I will be able to prevent this kind of damage. There have been recent examples also of people moving sand dunes to find a site for a caravan, an extension to a dwelling or whatever, without realising the damage they were doing to the overall beach system and, very directly, the kind of damage that can be done to the movement of sand on the beach.

Equally it is important that there be a local voice in protecting local beaches. For this purpose the Bill provides that, in addition to the Minister, a local authority would have recourse to the courts to prosecute for offences, or to gain injunctions to prevent further damage to a beach or dune system. The Bill provides also that the court may order that the works necessary to make good, or prevent further damage, be undertaken within a specified time limit. Henceforth not alone shall we have a method of preventing damage to our shores but it will be possible to reverse or remedy such damage as far as human ingenuity will permit, and as speedily as possible.

I might summarise the main provisions of the Bill. First, they give the Minister power to ban sand removal from any beach or classes of beaches; to ban any method of sand removal — we are thinking here particularly of mechanical diggers and large removals — to ban any way, or ways, of disturbing sand and so on; to get an order from any court to compel an offender to stop and make good the damage within an allowed time. I might add that a relevant local authority or any individual or body would also be able to obtain such an order. If an offender fails to carry out the order of the court, the provisions of the Bill allow the Minister to have remedial works carried out and the relevant offender billed for the costs. The Bill also allows for the prosecution of an offender in the District Court. A local authority would have that power also. The Bill also provides that the Minister may licence, or refuse to licence, removal or disturbance of sand and so on, and to set conditions on quantities, methods, vehicles, times, giving notice and other related matters. The Bill will also give the Minister power to include damage to flora, fauna and other amenities in the criteria for reaching a decision on whether to ban or allow any sand removal.

We have 52 European blue flag beaches which rank among the finest in Europe and 27 beaches were recently awarded national green flag status. We plan to protect and maintain these valuable national assets and to provide effective deterrents to those who knowingly and wilfully — or perhaps unwittingly — damage our beaches, sand dunes and seashore eco-systems. We must take action in this respect. It is my conviction that the action we are taking will be effective and helpful, strengthening the democratic process, allowing any individual to have right of recourse to the courts and to halt the illegal removal or disturbance of sand. Our blue flag beaches are to be found all over the country in counties Louth and Dublin, in Bray, County Wicklow, in County Wicklow generally, Waterford, Wexford, Cork, Kerry, Clare and Galway. All over the country we have wonderful beaches. We have recognised their value as a national resource and we plan to maintain and protect them. This Bill will strengthen the Minister's powers to protect the heritage of our coastline for present and future generations. I commend it to the House. I thank the draftsmen and the officials of the Department for speedily bringing the Bill forward and the Opposition spokespersons for their courtesy and co-operation in ensuring that the Bill could pass through the House before the summer recess.

On behalf of Fine Gael I welcome this short but very important Bill. I thank the Minister for informing us that this legislation will be introduced before the end of this session. I understand that this Bill will not interfere with another Bill to be introduced which will deal with much more than the beach and beach material that the Minister has dealt with in this Bill. We look forward to the other marine legislation that was promised. This Bill will go a long way towards protecing our marine environment. Our seashores in general are for the public's enjoyment and should not be abused and this Bill takes account of that. The Minister and we, as legislators, have a great responsibility to protect our beaches for future generations. This matter was discussed at the recent Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Under this legislation we can ensure that our beach environment is protected.

In the past few years Members on all sides voiced their concerns regarding the protection of our beaches during Question Time and marine debates. The removal of beach material and the use of modern earth moving equipment were not envisaged when legislation was introduced initially. When he mentioned the consumer prices of that time the Minister reminded us that life was much simpler and less complex with regard to the preservation of the environment. The people who drafted that legislation did not anticipate that large machinery like sand diggers, tractors and heavy removal equipment would be capable of doing damage to some of our most beautiful and finest beaches. Members expressed particular concern about Ballybunion beach and I, and other Members who are not privileged to be from Kerry, expressed concern. We pointed out that whilst this may appear to be a local concern, the beach at Ballybunion was a national asset and we must all ensure it is protected.

I am pleased the Minister has put the protection of flora, fauna and the seashore amenities at the top of the agenda in this legislation. These may not have been dealt with in earlier legislation but they are specified in this Bill.

The definition section in the Foreshore Act, 1933, states:

The word "foreshore" means the bed and shore, below the line of high water of ordinary or medium tides, of the sea and of every tidal river and tidal estuary and of every channel, creek and bay of the sea...

It also states:

The word "seashore" means the foreshore and every beach, bank and cliff contiguous thereto and included all sands and rocks contiguous to the foreshore.

As the title of the Bill includes the word "foreshore" I would like the Minister to clarify if the Bill provides for measures to be taken when damage is caused to the seashore. The "seashore", as defined in the Foreshore Act, 1933, means a further part of the beach other than the bed and the shore below the tidal line, the bank, cliff sands and rocks contiguous to the foreshore.

We should ensure that damage to our seashore is covered under this Bill whilst our biggest concern is damage to our beaches, the greatest damage to our beaches has been caused by excavation works and the removal of sand. At the same time we should also take into consideration that there may also be large amounts of rocks and stones removed from beaches which may alter tidal flows or cause damage to beaches in some other way. I hope that as this Bill is titled, the Foreshore (Amendment) Bill, 1992, that the seashore will be protected also. I hope that any damage to the beach or to the flora and the fauna on the cliffs, rocks or sand will be covered under this Bill which provides for the protection of beaches.

I also welcome the fact that beach disturbance is covered in this Bill. The Minister is right to anticipate that in the future disturbance may be caused to beaches. If large sand buggies and two and four wheeled machines are allowed on our beaches, as is the case in other countries, they could cause damage. I do not believe that our beaches are threatened by such machines to any great extent at present but they might be in the future.

Will the Minister say how public are our public beaches? We all hope that our beaches are publicly owned but have claims of ownership been made in regard to certain beaches or areas of a beach? Would they also come under this legislation or would they be exempt?

Section 8 states that where a corporate group commit an offence under this legislation a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate may be found guilty. Will the Minister indicate if a person will be named so they may be sued for damage caused? Does the Minister consider this section workable? I understand that if an offence is committed section 5 provides that the Minister or the local authority concerned may take an action in the High Court. Section 5 also provides that any other person whether or not that person has an interest in the seashore concerned, may also take an action in the High Court. If it is left to an individual to take a case, would the High Court costs be prohibitive and would there be any way to assist with such costs through the local authority? If an individual had to take out an injunction perhaps on a Friday night when the local authorities were not in a position to move to do that, would there be some fall back so that the individual would not have to carry the total cost and the local authority could take it up on behalf of the individual who took the first action?

The Labour Party support the Bill. Our spokesman, Deputy O'Sullivan, is on another mission on behalf of the all-party delegation to an unnamed embassy. Our spokesman fully supports the Bill, as does the Labour Parliamentary Party. This short Bill is long overdue, but it is effective and easy to understand. Much of the legislation which comes through the House is cumbersome and difficult to understand. This Bill is very precise and gets the message across very clearly.

There is wholesale interference with the sand dunes and beaches for commercial purposes. Many people seem to think they have acquired a right to take sand, having regard to long standing arrangements with local authorities; but these arrangements have never been defined and there are constant disputes. It is one thing for a person with a horse and cart to take a few shovels of sand for a specific purpose, but there is now a question of selling sand which has been illegally removed from beaches and sand dunes and this must be stopped.

The Minister in introducing the Bill said that he intended to introduce a major Bill later in the year. I am glad of that because this Bill does not go far enough in many respects. I say this as a former chairman of a port authority and a long serving member of a port authority and as a member of two local authorities with long coastlines.

The Bill in a number of sections refers to disturbance. I would like clarification of that. The Bill refers only to the seashore. In my constituency and in other areas there has been illegal reclaiming of foreshore, mainly in estuaries and along tidal rivers. Tidal rivers and estuaries are very important in relation to the operation of ports. When the Minister speaks about the seashore or foreshore is he including the foreshore of rivers like the River Boyne, which is tidal, and other tidal rivers which depend on the tidal activity for the control of shipping into various ports? My Parliamentary Question No. 136 yesterday related to a specific matter to which the Minister replied. I have been appalled at the length of time it has taken the Department of the Marine to process that. It goes back to a time long before I became chairman of that port authority. Similar problems exist elsewhere with regard to the definition of the foreshore. Many foreshores are on sublease from the Department. The Department are dealing inefficiently with subleases as it takes an inordinate amount of time to deal with them.

There is wholesale plundering of sand from our dunes and beaches and it must stop. This Bill will give the local authority more force in implementing regulations under the 1933 Act which govern this. The fines were ridiculous and I agree with the Minister in updating them. I am sure that those who have engaged in illegal activity will think twice before they engage in it again. Who will police the implementation of the regulations? Much of this activity occurs outside the normal working hours of local authorities. I know that the Act provides for any member of the public to take action. The main policing of this Bill will effectively rest with the general public rather than the local authority or the Garda Síochána. If a person makes a complaint to the local authority, will he have to provide the names and addresses of the people concerned? There is obviously no power of arrest in the Bill. On foot of a complaint by a member of the general public to the local authority, will the local authority be empowered to take the necessary proceedings against the offending person or persons or corporate body?

Will the Minister indicate if consideration will be given to coastal erosion in the Bill to be introduced later this year? Coastal erosion is causing more damage than the illegal taking of sand from beaches. Coastal erosion is affecting all our coastline and it will continue to occur because local authorities do not have the finance and will not have the finance, except perhaps through EC funds, to deal with this matter.

We in the Labour Party welcome the Bill. There are other matters which should be dealt with at a later stage — for instance, rights of way and the illegal fencing of coastal areas, beaches and parts of beaches. Will the Minister indicate if it is his intention to deal with the very important subject of the illegal reclaiming of foreshore, particularly in estuaries and tidal rivers? In welcoming the Bill we will ensure its speedy passage through the House.

I note that Deputy Joe Sherlock is ready to take to the beaches again.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Deenihan.

Democratic Left welcome this Bill, which is urgent, because it is designed to protect the seashore from the damage caused by the removal of beach material, sand and gravel. It is evident that down through the years there has been wholesale abuse of the coastline by people who seemingly have no regard for our beaches as great amenities and who remove sand and gravel without adequate thought or planning.

In my own county of Cork, which includes the entire south Cork coastline and the west Cork coastline, the Cork County Council have imposed prohibition orders. The removal of sand from our beaches has been a contentious issue down through the years. The council had the power to make prohibiting orders in relation to the removal of sand from our beaches, and that is the position with very few exceptions.

I am happy that the penalties proposed under the Bill are very substantial. However, as has been pointed out by a previous speaker, a question arises as to the implementation of the legislation. Frequent mention has been made of local authorities. I could draw an analogy between this Bill and the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977. I am amazed that now the Minister for the Environment disclaims any responsibility for that legislation — it is entirely a matter for local government. I draw that analogy to show that very clearly enshrined in this Bill must be designated responsibility to the local authorities. I am sure that the Minister will refer to that in his reply. I also question whether the Garda Síochána will have any involvement, a matter that has been mentioned earlier.

Section 5 states that application may be made to the High Court by the Minister, a local authority or any other person. I point out to the Minister that section 4 makes no reference to the local authority. Section 4 states:

The Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution of the following for section 7:

"7".—(1) Whenever the Minister is of the opinion that the removal of beach material from, or the disturbance of beach material in, any area of foreshore belonging to the State in respect of which no prohibitory order is in force should be restricted or controlled, the Minister may serve on any person a notice...".

I should like the Minister to give consideration to the non-inclusion of local authorities in that section and to clarify the position in his reply. Sometimes when legislation is passed very speedily through the House provisions may seem to be satisfactory, but when the legislation is enacted anomalies begin to appear. In that regard I would instance the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1970.

I have been a member of the local authority in my own area and I recognise the great effort that has been made by the authority through the years. Very often certain interested parties mount a strong lobby for permission to remove sand and gravel from our beaches. We must protect our beaches as amenities. The only way to do that is by the enactment of legislation and the only way to make such legislation effective is to provide for the imposition of severe penalties. The penalties proposed in this Bill are very severe. The only question that might arise concerns the mechanism under which the legislation will be enacted and under which such penalties will be imposed.

I thank Deputy Sherlock for giving me some of his time. I certainly welcome this very important Bill.

In County Kerry we have had first hand experience of the damage done to a coastline by the removal of beach material. In our county we have more than 350 miles of coastline, over half of which is now threatened by the sea as a result of the removal of beach material in the past. A recent audit of our coastline commissioned by Kerry County Council indicated that it would take more than £10 million to properly consolidate and secure our coastline. That illustration gives an indication of the seriousness of the problem in County Kerry.

Reference was made to the beach in Ballybunion. For those who are interested, I should like to point out that an enormous improvement has taken place in Ballybunion. I acknowledge the intervention of the Minister and the responsibility of the farmers in question. As a result of the responsibility shown, Ballybunion beach regained its two blue flag award this year. The beach is reviving itself; it will take years to restore but it is reviving. Very positive developments have taken place at Ballybunion and I certainly welcome them. It is heartening to be able to talk of the improvements that have taken place.

No longer are sand and beach material attractive to farmers. Indeed it is nonsensical that either sand or beach material should be removed at this stage. There are plenty of sand and gravel pits throughout the country from which gravel and sand are available at very reasonable rates and it makes no sense that they should be taken off the beach. Sand has very limited agricultural use and it is certainly not suitable for building. Farmers should be made aware of that information. Sand removal is still taking place at an unacceptable level in parts of our county and nationally. I hope that the Bill will convince people that they should not take sand from our beaches and discourage them from doing so. I welcome the penalties suggested in the Bill. I hope that they will be enforced.

We must consider our beaches not only as recreational amenities but also as areas that need protection. Our beaches will become major economic assets as we become more involved in tourism and as we place more emphasis on outdoor activities. Our beaches must be protected now so that they can be used more in the future. We must also aim to protect our coastline. It makes very little sense to give money to organisations such as the Ballybunion Golf Club so that they can erect gabions to prevent coastal erosion while farmers are taking away the natural protection. Thankfully, the removal of sand has finished and it is to be hoped that it will not recommence. I stress the nonsense of spending large amounts of money on coastal protection on the one hand and then on the other hand not stopping farmers and other commercial interests from taking away the natural protection. I hope that in the future commonsense will prevail, that people will realise the value of our beaches and recognise the fact that it takes years to restore one load of sand.

I thank the Minister for bringing forward this very positive legislation which has received enthusiastic support from everybody in this House, as it should.

On behalf of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, I welcome this long awaited Bill as far as it goes. This Bill was promised in the Government's environmental action programme published on 26 January, 1990 and was to be introduced before the end of 1990. It is interesting to note that in the environmental legislation promised to be introduced before the end of that year were such important Bills as the National Parks and Heritage Areas Bill, the National Heritage Council Bill and the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill. With great regret I must put on the record of this House that these Bills have not even been published. I ask the Minister to press at Cabinet level to have these Bills introduced as early as possible in the new session. The Government's failure to progress this Bill and the other Bills I have mentioned indicates once again the need for a proper Minister for the Environment at Cabinet level with sole responsibility for environmental matters. I have made this point many times in the Dáil with no reasoned response from the Government.

This short Bill is now being rushed through the House and I have grave misgivings about trying to deal with quite a complex matter in an hour. However, as the legislation is very urgently required and as the Bill appears to be sound basically, I do not wish to appear to be halting progress.

Of course, this Bill deals with only some of the problems in the foreshore area and the Minister has indicated that a further Bill will be required to deal with many other matters which need amendment. The problem of removal of sand and stones for beaches is very serious. Since my election to the Dáil three years ago I have received complaints from all over Ireland, including County Kerry. I am pleased that Deputy Deenihan can report some improvement in the catastrophic situation in Ballybunion and he is a great ally of mine down there in that regard. I have received complaints about Roundstone beach, various beaches in Donegal and, nearer home, Portrane in County Dublin, where only a couple of weeks ago a large quantity of sand was removed. Other Deputies have referred to the horse and cart. The Principal Act was enacted in that are in 1933. The beaches are now being attacked by JCBs and ten ton lorries — a very different kettle of fish.

One of the principal purposes of the Bill is to increase the level of fines substantially. I welcome this provision wholeheartedly. However, even in these times of relatively low inflation, fines should be index linked. I am pleased also that there is provision for imprisonment, which clearly should be imposed without compunction on deliberate and persistent offenders. Sometimes I think the wrong kind of people go to jail.

There is a major defect in that the Principal Act of 1933 has not been revised once the Planning Acts of 1963 and 1976 were enacted. Obviously an amendment will be needed to provide a proper link between the foreshore legislation and the planning legislation dealing with foreshore licences. There is a need for more public involvement in the foreshore licensing procedure on a transparent and open basis, as is provided for under the planning legislation. There is a need to provide for an appeals system in regard to determination of foreshore licences should the applicant, the local authority or any member of the public feel aggrieved by the decision on the granting of such licence. The conditions under which a foreshore licence is granted should also be made available publicly.

There are a couple of problems with the Bill itself and I hope there will be time for a very short Committee Stage because I have three amendments ready to be circulated. The first deals with habitats. There is reference in section 3 of the Bill to flora or fauna. This should be extended to the area of habitats. I would define habitats as including Machair sand systems and such other habitats as are included in the EC Habitats Directive. With regard to the definition of fauna, I feel it would be useful if the definition of habitats as provided for in the EC Birds Directive is incorporated in this Bill. Also I am not very happy about section 5, which provides for powers of the High Court. I wonder if this could not be derogated to the Circuit Court in appropriate cases in view of the extreme urgency there sometimes is to prohibit sand removal. An application to a lower court would probably be heard more quickly. Accordingly, I hope an amendment can be taken on this.

In the hope that there might be time for a short Committee Stage, I will not use my full time allocation.

I welcome the comments. Deputy Barnes started off with the whole question of the environment and the areas which are privately set off or where private rights have been established. The Principal Act provides for a prohibitory order even in the private cases, but section 6 of the Bill provides for realistic powers and penalties. These would apply as well to sections which would be in private ownership. That point is covered and the Deputy can rest assured about that.

The seashore includes the banks, cliffs, sand, rocks and all that area. That is why the seashore is included in addition to the foreshore.

Another aspect is that this Bill provides remedies. It provides for remedial action, a particularly important aspect. The Deputy talked about sand buggies. I have seen them in operation. It would be possible to control their operation if they were causing damage of the kind mentioned. To refer to what Deputy Garland said, action could commence through the District Court or the Circuit Court; that is covered in section 6, so there is no need for that amendment.

On another point Deputy Garland raised, the habitats can be taken in under the regulations covering flora, fauna, etc. I have noted the point and I am advised that it can be covered.

I thank the Deputies for the welcome they gave to the Bill. I think they appreciate that rather than wait for major legislation, probably at the end of this year or the beginning of next year — and I am trying to get it as quickly as I can — it was urgent that we moved this stage. This Bill will give a great deal of power and will be very effective and useful at this time.

Deputy Bell was concerned about disturbance. Here it is a new concept and the powers are widened to include even the moving of sand apart from its removal and taking away from the beach. It can be moved on the beach and this is what happened in Portrane, as Deputy Garland mentioned, where a dune was moved and set aside. That affects the whole system. In other cases depressions can be left in the beach which when the tide is in can be very dangerous for swimmers, especially young swimmers but also older swimmers. One is walking out and suddenly is into a depression. This can be highly dangerous and a major factor in relation to safety.

Deputy Bell recognised and welcomed the powers given to local authorities regarding fines and the amounts of fines, but was concerned about the policing. Previously the fines were so derisory that even when local authorities had a case it was hardly worth their while taking it. However, one of the most important aspects of this Bill is that the fines will make it very worthwhile for the local authorities to take action when incidents are reported to them. I believe a great many people will report cases to them — indeed, any member of the public can report cases either to the local authority or to the Minister. The lifeguards and officers responsible for the environmental protection of beaches will also act as contact points.

I will undertake to get out fact sheets so that the provisions of this Bill will be generally understood. Deputies may well remember co-operating with the Department of Social Welfare in this regard and we will do something similar so that people will be made well aware of the position.

Deputy Bell was concerned about coast erosion. While we have the powers to deal with this, we need more money to deal with the problem. We are already doing a great deal of work on coast erosion but more money is required. The wider review of the legislation will deal with illegal reclamation. However, once a person puts up a structure or does something else in order to reclaim land, it could come under the provisions of disturbance and we would be able to do something about it.

That is the point.

However, we will deal with this point in the wider Bill.

Deputy Sherlock is now back in the firing line. He has made a tremendous contribution over the years and I am very glad to see him back in the front line again. I hope he will enjoy the best of good health.

Hear, hear.

While Deputy Sherlock is very happy with the level of penalties, he would like to be reassured that they will be applied. I will certainly give that a great deal of attention. Section 4 provides that the Minister may pursue the issue but this also includes provisions for the local authority and individuals to pursue the matter.

Deputy Deenihan outlined what happened to Ballybunion beach. I am very glad that Ballybunion has again been awarded the blue flag and I hope that we will all learn a lesson from what happened there, as it serves as a very important warning of what can happen. I am very happy that the situation has improved but we will have to keep a close watch to ensure that it will never happen again. Deputy Deenihan also stressed that it required the co-operation of all to restore the beach. Farmers generally understand the value of land and the value of the seashore and in Ballybunion they worked in conjunction with the local authority, the Department of the Marine and everybody else concerned, to bring the beach up to standard and they must be given great credit for that. It is our job to ensure that everybody realises the damage that can be caused. Excessive removal of sand or stones can unwittingly lead to damage and people may not realise the effects of what they are doing. We intend to put an end to such disturbances and the Bill gives us the powers to do that.

Deputy Garland believes that major legislation was long overdue and I take this opportunity to reassure him that I am working on the major Bill. A great deal of work needs to be done on the Bill but I will be working to bring it to fruition. While he welcomed the increase in fines he would like to have the 1933 Act reviewed in the light of the developments that have taken place since that date. That will be covered in the major Bill. The other matters he was concerned about are covered under the powers of this Bill. Finally let me thank Members for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share