Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 1993

Vol. 436 No. 2

Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill, 1993: Report and Final Stages (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 50b:
In page 13, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"24. —In the case of Local Authority flat complexes where the evidence of tenants on the criminal or unruly behaviour of other tenants cannot be obtained due to intimidation or fear, the Court may take into account the word of a Garda, not below the rank of superintendent, that the tenant is behaving in a criminal or unruly manner, as evidence in any application by a Local Authority for a court order to evict, or otherwise penalise, a local authority tenant.".
—(Deputy G. Mitchell).

There may be Members who think it is wrong to differentiate between local authority and other flat complexes. In the normal course of events I would agree with that argument. Certainly I do not seek to discriminate merely for the purpose of discrimination, I seek to discriminate the legal provisions in a manner which would render them effective in dealing with a very real and serious problem, particularly in our capital city. If one takes Dublin as an example — with which I am most familiar, although I am sure the problem obtains in most urban areas where local authority flat complexes are located — there are approximately 16,000 Dublin Corporation flats. Of those approximately 1,000 are occupied by senior citizens. By and large, the remainder are comprised of flat complexes of three or four storeys, most of them situated between the canals and in close proximity to each other. Some of these flat complexes, built just before or after the Second World War are comprised of large numbers of flats, 300 or 400 being quite common. If even one family behaves in an anti-social manner the whole flat complex is in chaos. In my constituency, in Rathland Road, Dublin Corporation eventually had to knock down a perfectly sound flat complex, in a high demand local authority housing area, because two or three people terrorised all the good people who lived there, in the end most people simply wanted to get out. That is not always the solution to the problem. Unfortunately, very often the solution is that the residents, to some extent, take the law into their own hands, march collectively on disruptive tenants to gain peace for themselves and their children. The problem is caused not merely by disruptive tenants but by tenants who openly sell drugs, bringing down a whole area; in parts of the country this would be equivalent to a very large village in which 300 or 400 flats are located, bringing down the overall flat complex.

In my constituency in the inner city there is a flat complex free of drug pushers because the residents, unable to gain assistance from State agencies, simply marched on these people, warning them to give up their drug pushing or leave. Eventually they put them out. One or two people in that flat complex — othewise comprised of perfectly normal, decent, God-fearing people — were selling drugs to people who travelled from as far away as Dún Laoghaire by taxi to purchase them. This meant that the old folk and the children of those tenants had to walk in and out through this flat complex, passing these people buying and selling drugs, injecting on stairways, throwing up and behaving in all sorts of undesirable ways, then leaving their needles lying around which could be picked up by young, vulnerable children.

When the tenants complain to Dublin Corporation about this problem, incidentally often supported by the Garda, the Corporation warn the people involved but nothing happens and they continue their undesirable activities. Eventually Dublin Corporation, after a long process of serving notices while the complex deteriorates, with decent families wanting to get out and others offered accommodation there not accepting it, take the undesirable person to court. Then one comes up against a judge — I will not name him but I have one in mind — who seeks four independent witnesses to testify that they know what is going on in this flats complex. Of course, tenants cannot give evidence because, if they do, they will be intimidated, beaten up, perhaps knee-capped, or even worse, their children will not be safe travelling to school or to the shops.

This is a very serious problem. I spoke to an official of Dublin Corporation the other day who asked me when the Legislature will do something about this problem. I told him I had an amendment tabled to the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill, 1993. I acknowledge that my amendment may not solve the problem but certainly we need a remedy along these lines. Informally I understand that the Assistant Garda Commissioner for the Dublin Metropolitan area, Mr. Curran, a very accessible, alert and positive-minded man, is endeavouring to deal with this problem by offering the courts Garda evidence, pointing out that the Garda were aware of previous complaints on the part of the said tenants. However, he does not know whether that testimony will be accepted as evidence in court. This problem cannot be solved by the Garda or local authority; it is one for the courts who must be told that the evidence they seek is unrealistic in the circumstances and that they must do something because people are taking the law into their own hands. A recent television programme illustrated the manner in which kangaroo courts are operated, people are marched before a committee and told that although they had been warned about their activities they had not ceased to engage in them and that they must leave the area.

In the past I condemned people who were outside the law, but if the law does not provide protection for these people what are they to do? Are they to allow their children to develop AIDS from picking up dirty needles? Must they allow their senior citizens to be intimidated by people making large amounts of money pushing drugs, totally ignoring the law? In the same circumstances what would the Minister, I or anybody else do? Of course, we would meet the residents and try to do something about the problem. I do not welcome this unhealthy development but, in all the circumstances, I cannot condemn it. I do not want to see anybody take the law into their own hands. I will not support violence in any shape or form but we need to provide a form of evidence which can be used, which in all the circumstances is reasonable, and can be accepted by the courts. A Garda superintendent is in an ideal position, being a responsible person, who will have the relevant information readily available, who will not be appearing in court on his behalf simply giving evidence and the local authority will also be represented. They will have a record of having served notice on them and so on. Somehow we must get around the business of the courts seeking four independent witnesses while all the time Dublin's inner city goes to rack and ruin because these drug pushers and other undesirables carry on to their heart's content.

I must say this before concluding — which I acknowledge is something of a side swipe at some members of the Judiciary — I have a very high regard for the Judiciary who have a very difficult job to do, but they live in an unrealistic environment. For example, very few of them live in or adjacent to these flat complexes about which I speak and would have have had no occasion to visit them. Indeed not very many Members of this House live in or adjacent to those flat complexes but at least, as their public representatives, we have occasion to visit them regularly, to meet their tenants and discuss their problems. Those of us who are also members of local authorities see the total frustration of Dublin Corporation housing officials who are not just laughed out of court but often abused because they merely seek to do their civic duty in defending the 99 per cent of decent, law abiding, God-fearing, tenants.

It is only the other tiny percentage of people we need to be concerned about. I have to accept that this amendment may not be the way to deal with it but an amendment of this kind needs to be incorporated to give the courts the power, where the due process has been gone through by the local authority with the support of the Garda superintendent, to get these people out legally before the whole things gets out of hand completely; and what better place for it than a Public Order Bill?

I intervene to support what Deputy Mitchell has said. The number of incidents that come to your notice, in your capacity as a public representative in urban constituencies, of disruptive behaviour, anti-social behaviour at the lower end of the spectrum and extreme criminality at the upper end of the spectrum, which has the effect of destroying neighbourhoods for local authority tenants, is very significant. The absence of any effective remedy is noteworthy. It requires that the Legislature looks at the issue.

Deputy Mitchell correctly points out that very few people in a local authority estate or in a set of flats will come forward and individually point the finger at gangland bosses, drug pushers and men of violence living in their street. On the other hand the Judiciary are faced with a situation that if they are asked to evict a tenant they can only do that on evidence. Obviously, I can offer no view on whether one, two, three or four are necessary. I would take the view that evidence does not need to be corroborated by a number of people. It is up to an individual judge to decide whether evidence is reliable. If due to intimidation no evidence is available, a community has to suffer criminality in its midst and all the things about which Deputy Mitchell spoke so passionately and eloquently. Nothing can be done about it.

If a house was being used for pushing drugs in a middle class neighbourhood something would be done about it. The neighbours would either take civil action to stop it or in some way or another use their influence with the police to stop it; and it would stop. Unfortunately, when you are at the lower end of the social pecking order in our society, there seem to be fewer remedies available, even though there is more need for them.

What Deputy Mitchell has said is substantially correct and it cannot be gainsaid. I believe his proposed solution is along the right lines. In evictions from local authority estates there should be a mechanism whereby some form of certificate or whatever or evidence from a superintendent in the area should be admissible without direct evidence on a hearsay basis to prove the substance of a complaint against an individual tenant. It should not be the case that individual people should have to be brought before the court to point the finger at the drug pusher or the gangland boss in their midst. It should be possible to produce secondary evidence, albeit hearsay, by somebody whose integrity is beyond question, such as a local policeman of senior rank, to make that evidence admissible and to allow the court to rely on that evidence without seeking further evidence from ordinary Joe Soaps in order to remedy the problem.

Although, as Deputy Mitchell said, this may not be the legislative venue for dealing with this issue, the Minister may rest assured that in terms of public peace and public order there is nothing as damaging to public order as the failure to remedy this particular problem by proper legal means. There is nothing as corrosive of trust in the police, the courts and the Judiciary as the state of affairs which exists both in Deputy Mitchell's constituency and in my own constituency. Ordinary people find that the only remedy they have is to intimidate criminals out of their own estates by marches, by meetings and by taking the law into their own hands. Like Deputy Mitchell, I absolutely condemn any form of vigilante activity of that kind. As Deputy Mitchell points out, if the law does not provide a remedy, then when people's patience is finally exhausted, they will supply their own remedy.

If people have a right to live in circumstances where drugs are not pushed in their midst and where they do not have violence and all the things Deputy Mitchell spoke so graphically about happening on their doorstep; and if they have a constitutional right, which I believe they have, to live away from those circumstances or to have the people causing those circumstances removed from their midst, there should be a means to give effect to it. There is nothing as likely to provoke breaches of the peace, serious assaults, damage to property and, indeed, killings — as we have seen — than the absence of a proper remedy. The most significant contributory factor to a lot of violence in inner city Dublin is that ordinary decent law abiding people have no institutions and no mechanisms for protecting their rights.

I fully endorse every single word spoken by Deputy Mitchell here. I share his reservation that perhaps there is another way of doing it. This Bill will not establish public order unless it is accompanied by some other mechanism to deal with the problems pointed out by Deputy Mitchell. There will be more killings, assaults, knee-cappings and vigilante groups in our inner city unless we provide local authorities with a method of clearing up their own estates. Vigilante justice is completely wrong and is completely reprehensible. It is not justice. Nonetheless, in many circumstances it is the last available remedy to a community whom society is failing.

I urge the Minister to take note of what Deputy Mitchell has said. I realise the Minister comes from a constituency which has a large urban centre. One has to be on the ground in Dublin listening to complaints to be aware of reality. At the bonfire recently in my constituency there was a killing and there may well be an increase in this type of activity. There are many other places in the south and north inner city of Dublin where all the neighbours know what is going on and effectively, can do nothing about it. I would ask the Minister to do her best.

I am grateful to Deputy Mitchell for drawing attention to this whole problem by way of this amendment which was tabled after the "Tuesday File" programme. Like Deputy Mitchell and many Members of the House, I also watched that programme. Having seen it I arranged immediately for preliminary discussions to take place between officials of my Department and officials of the Department of the Environment. Both Deputy McDowell and Deputy Mitchell accept that the Department of the Environment has primary responsibility in regard to housing regulations and all that area.

The Department of the Environment has primary responsibility because it deals with local authorities in urban and rural areas. I would be most familiar with the court practices in relation to evictions proceedings. As both Deputies will be aware, such proceedings are civil rather than criminal in nature. While the type of bad behaviour of tenants referred to by Deputy Gay Mitchell would generallay be in contravention of standards laid down in regulations under the housing acts and the terms of individual tenancy agreements, difficulties can arise in practice, in making available sufficient evidence to convince a court to evict tenants on these grounds. It is understandable that the courts may feel obliged under the housing regulations and under the terms of individual tenancy agreements to hear evidence from other tenants that the behaviour of the particular tenant, whose eviction is sought, is unacceptable and has affected them but, equally, there are bound to be substantial difficulties in persuading other tenants to come forward with such evidence. Clearly this problem needs to be addressed quickly.

Whereas there is a large sprawling urban centre with quite a number of local authority houses and flat complexes in my constituency, I agree the problems with tenants' behaviour in this area would not be as great as those in Dublin. However, in Dublin I live at very close quarters to local authority flat complexes where there are a great many difficulties of the type referred to in "First Tuesday". I am aware, from contacts with my immediate neighbours, of what they have to put up with even though I may be there only five days a week. This problem must be addressed quickly. Given that what is primarily at issue is the evidential requirements of civil law, I am not convinced that the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Bill is the best legislative vehicle to deal with this matter.

In addition, there are technical difficulties with the amendment — on which I do not wish to dwell — for example, there is a need to refer in some more legislatively precise way to the nature of the proceedings taken by the local authority and the powers under which those arise. It might be possible to improve the situation by way of amendment to the housing regulations, but other approaches would have to be considered also. In the time available since the amendment was tabled, which was after the screening of the "First Tuesday" programme, it has not proved possible in discussions between officials from my Department and the Department of the Environment to reach any definite conclusion as to the best way to proceed. I fully accept that the issue raised by Deputy Mitchell and supported by Deputy Michael McDowell needs urgent attention and that we cannot allow a situation such as that portrayed on the television programme where people decide to take the law into their own hands. I accept that feelings in those areas are very strong and that people only take the law into their own hands when they feel there is no other way of sorting out the difficulties in their areas. I do not condone vigilante groups and the type of simulated court room justice they dispense but I can understand the frustrations that drove ordinary decent people to it.

Consultations are continuing between officials from my Department and the Department of the Environment and action will be taken quickly to deal with the problems outlined in this amendment by Deputies Mitchell and McDowell.

I am delighted to pass on Deputy Mitchell's thanks to Assistant Commissioner Curran for his work in the Dublin metropolitan area. As the Deputy is no doubt aware, he has been working very closely recently with officials of Dublin Corporation to try to provide information on criminal behaviour and activity, particularly in relation to drugs, that would be of benefit to the corporation in the operation of its housing policy. I think the message from the television programme is that tenants want a situation where the corporation may evict tenants involved in criminal behaviour, particularly in drug dealing or supplying drugs. Assistant Commissioner Curran is working with corporation officials in helping them to get the type of information local tenants are asking for when devising the housing policy so that people involved in crime, relating to drugs or other activities, would not be allocated corporation housing in specific areas. This is the way we have to approach the problem. I appreciate the extent of the existing problem but I hope that Deputy Mitchell will accept that it is a civil rather than a criminal matter and that we need to come up with a solution in conjunction with the Department of the Environment. I am not putting the issue on the long finger. In advance of the amendment being tabled my officials had commenced discussions with officials from the Department of the Environment and I have spoken to my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Michael Smith, who also appreciates the urgency of addressing this problem. I am very hopeful that between us we will shortly come up with the formula that will provide the solution to the problem.

I am glad to hear the Minister say that, in conjunction with the Minister for the Environment, she will bring forward proposals to deal with this grave problem. I did not see the "First Tuesday" programme but I know exactly what is happening on the ground and I understand that it illustrates the problem in the area I have in mind.

It may well be a civil matter for Dublin Corporation to evict a tenant from a local authority flat, I am speaking specifically of flat complexes rather than houses, because people are living very near one another — and in parts of the inner city flat complexes are sited adjacent to each other — but if a tenant is evicted from one complex and moves to an adjoining one, the problem remains. Whereas I realise that the eviction from a corporation flat of drug pushing or criminal local authority tenant is a civil matter, it is a matter of public order when God-fearing, law abiding neighbouring tenants who would not otherwise dream of being in a vigilante group are driven to marching on the offending tenants. That does not happen over-night but after a prolonged procedure. I have great sympathy for the gardaí in this situation but if they and the local authority are not able to deal effectively with these criminals who recklessly disregard the rights of others, particularly children and old people, the most vulnerable members of the community, the people will take the law into their own hands. This is already happening.

I do not accept that it is merely a civil matter, it is a matter of public order. What is at the heart of my amendment is that if this issue is not addressed we will end up with kangaroo courts passing judgment and the people will then be equipped to turf these criminals out when judgment has been passed. Nobody wants that but should it happen the rule of law will have broken down. Will the Minister amend this Bill in the Seanad on foot of the response from her colleague? It is a matter of public order, a matter of grave concern which affects many people in parts of the capital city and in other areas of the country. This problem is encouraging law abiding citizens to look outside of the law for a solution. I hope the Minister will consider this in the Seanad if it is not possible to include it today. If it is not possible to do so in the Seanad I hope that before Christmas we will have amending legislation to deal with what is an extremely urgent matter.

In view of the Minister's response I will not press this to a vote. I am pleased that across the House there is an understanding of the objective I set out to achieve in this amendment. I hope it will be achieved through some other vehicle in the near future.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 51 is in the name of the Minister. I observe that amendment No. 52 is cognate and I suggest therefore that we discuss amendments Nos. 51 and 52 together.

I move amendment No. 51:

In page 13, line 17, to delete "who" and substitute "whom".

This is a drafting amendment to ensure that section 24 maintains the high standard of literacy throughout the rest of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 13, line 18, to delete "who" and substitute "whom".

Amendment agreed to.

We will deal now with amendment No. 53. I observe that amendment No. 54 is an alternative and I suggest therefore that we discuss both amendments together.

I move amendment No. 53:

In page 13, line 31, to delete "5,".

Will the Minister explain why "5" is being deleted?

An amendment on Committee Stage in the name of Deputy Harney sought to delete the power of arrest without warrant in relation to disorderly behaviour. I considered the matter fully, as I undertook to do on Committee Stage, and in the light of the relatively minor nature of the offence and the fact that under the section there would remain a power of arrest where a person refused to desist from disorderly behaviour when directed by a Garda under section 8, I brought forward an amendment which will delete the powers of arrest in relation to section 5 offences.

There is a difference between the two amendments.

If the House accepts amendment No. 53 it cannot accept amendment No. 54. The House can accept either one or the other. I have no difficulty as to which amendment is accepted.

Section 9 should be included. Under section 9 there should be a power to arrest people obstructing traffic. The only difference between my amendment and the Minister's is that mine covered section 9. It seems ridiculous that someone could engage in a sit down strike on O'Connell Bridge and the gardaí could not arrest him.

I do not want to cause dissent in the closing stages of the Bill but I have reservations about including section 9 and I am happier with the Minister's amendment. We discussed the question of wilful obstruction and how it might be possible in the case of a trade union or a political picket to arrest protesters.

A possible compromise would be to refer to section 9 in section 8 (1) (a). That might satisfy Deputy Mitchell's point. This might be done in the Seanad. We could provide that a garda who saw somebody obstructing traffic could give him a direction to desist and if the person failed to comply with the direction he could then arrest him. That might satisfy both Deputy Mitchell and the Minister.

I accept the difficulty which Deputy Mitchell has as it was one I had but I was prepared to accept amendment No. 54 instead of amendment No. 53 if the House agreed. In fairness to Deputies Mitchell and McDowell, and those who tabled the amendment, I ask the House to accept my amendment for the moment and take my word that I will look at the Deputy's suggestion between now and when the Bill goes to the Seanad.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 54 not moved.

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 14, in the sixth row of the Schedule, to delete the following:

“8 Edw. 7, c.66

Public Meeting Act, 1908

The whole Act.”

We are deleting from the sixth row of the Schedule "Public Meeting Act, 1908" and the reason for that is the deletion of a section from the Bill. The Minister is leaving the 1908 Act in place, is that correct?

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I sincerly thank the Deputies present, and those who participated in the debate. Probably more debating time in this House has been given to this Bill than has been given to any other in the recent history of the Department of Justice. That was appropriate because while people were calling for such a measure for a long time they wanted to ensure that it would not infringe on legitimate civil rights. During the course of the Committee and Report Stages debate we have ironed out many of the difficulties and concerns and have addressed them by way of amendment or deletion of certain aspects of the Bill. The Bill is stronger and better as a result.

In thanking Members it would be remiss of me not to refer to the fact that at the outset of the debate on the Bill Deputy Mary Harney was the Progressive Democrats spokesperson on Justice. I congratulate Deputy Harney on her elevation to leadership of that party and wish her well in her task. I congratulate and welcome Deputy O'Donnell as the new spokesperson for Justice without denigrating the tremendous role played by Deputy Michael McDowell when Deputies Harney and O'Donnell were not available. I sincerely thank all Deputies, particularly the main Opposition spokespersons including Deputies Mitchell and Gilmore, for their support and co-operation during the passage of the Bill.

For one reason or another I could not address a number of issues raised on Report Stage and I have undertaken to look at them between now and the Seanad debate. I will do that and if it is possible to amend the Bill further to strengthen it in the Seanad I am prepared to do so.

The next Bill which the Minister might bring before the House should be entitled, The Sexual Discrimination Criminal Public Order Bill or something like that. I found two faults with this Bill, it was too hard on law abiding citizens and not hard enough on the criminal. I am still critical of the Bill which has weaknesses on both fronts. However, we have a much better Bill now than what was first brought before the House. That is the role of the Legislature. We have examined the Bill, amended it, deleted some sections and added others. The Minister has shown mature judgment in accepting many of the amendments, because a great deal of public concern exists in regard to public order. Nevertheless, I am concerned that the use of insulting words or the displaying of offensive playcards will be a criminal offence and I tried to have the word "intimidating" substituted. Some sections of the Bill are unnecessary for normal law-abiding citizens. I hope the Minister will take on board, in particular, the weakness in respect of public order in flat complexes which I outlined today and amend the Bill in the Seanad in that regard.

As the Bill has been much improved, a number of amendments have been accepted and we have had a constructive debate on it, it would be futile to put the matter to a vote at this stage.

I thank the Minister for her kind remarks about the internal arrangements in my party. I am glad the ladies have made up their minds that I may be relieved of the function of night watchman on criminal matters.

The Bill is a necessary measure because our laws had become outdated. The Dublin Police Act is no longer a proper means of preserving public order because, first, it is restricted to the Dublin area and, second, it is a Victorian statute. It is desirable that all our laws in relation to riots and public disorder should be codified and become modern workable law; and I hope this Bill fits that description.

There are a few matters I would ask the Minister not to forget, in particular, the issue of public places and the marginal variation in that regard which she indicated she would consider before the Bill goes to the Seanad.

I would ask her also to consider the matter raised by Deputy O'Malley regarding people found in possession of criminal information and equipment designed for the purpose of committing serious offences. It is unacceptable that the possession of preparatory documents or equipment for the purposes of committing a crime should continue to be a non-criminal offence. It is unacceptable that the Garda will have no powers when they discover people in possession of balaclavas, false moustaches, plans of other people's houses, details of other people's movements and so on, even thought it may be well known that such people are planning a criminal offence. Such offences should not go unpunished. If the godfathers of crime are ever to be caught it is more likely they would be caught in possession of such information and equipment than taking the risk of being caught red-handed in commissioning the crimes they organise. I recently say a programme on a cross-channel television station——

Did the Deputy watch the Ard Fhéis?

I will not talk about the Ard Fhéis, but I spoke to Deputy Lenihan about it when we were abroad and public order issues did arise on that occasion, as far as I am aware. I watched an interesting programme on a cross-channel station about the use of cameras for surveillance in public places. That means of detecting crime is quickly gathering pace in Great Britain. I am not sure who provides the funding for such equipment, but they are being installed in public places in many counties in England to discourage violence. I accept that involves a great deal of expenditure, but I can think of nothing more likely to bring peace to our streets than for people to be aware that their unlawful actions, whether it is drug dealing, running away having committed a robbery or a mugging, can be recorded, occasionally under surveillance, and that the Garda could be directed to the place in question immediately.

Some people might claim that the instalment of spy cameras in public places would be an intrusion on their civil liberties. I do not see the logic in that, because if we had infinite resources a garda could be placed on every street corner recording mentally in his or her notebook the movements in the street in question. In this technological age it makes no sense to require gardaí on the beat to be the only means of responding to criminal activity. Such cameras were useful in the sad case of the Jamie Bulger trial, which is taking place in Great Britain at present. If private institutions such as banks, building societies and shopping centres can use such equipment, the time has come for the public to move into the late 20th century in terms of its response to crime.

I appreciate the spirit and open-mindedness of the Minister in accepting amendments on Committee and Report Stages.

It is appropriate that, as a backbencher on the Government side, I should make a brief comment at the conclusion of this Bill. We have been waiting a long time for this legislation and Deputies from all sides conveyed that view unequivocally during the course of the debate. I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this legislation, especially for the manner in which she brought it forward. As is evident from the debate, the opinions of Members, including those on the Government side, differ in regard to various aspects of the Bill. The Minister should be commended for her mature approach in seeking consensus on the legislation. From the outset she pointed out that she wanted to adopt a consensus approach to tackling the problems of public disorder, and we all know the extent of those problems. A milestone has been achieved in the passing of this legislation in that there has been a considerable degree of consensus in regard to it. While Members from all sides had an input in that, the initial approach of the Minister and the marker she put down for us all enhanced that.

The legislation will have a major impact in tackling problems of public disorder, particularly in urban areas. While there are still some minor reservations on the part of Opposition spokespersons, in general the feeling is that what we have achieved here is important, will be effective and will enable our decent, ordinary law-abiding citizens to have peace and quiet and public order on our streets with no disturbance in their homes during the day or at night. Again, I congratulate the Minister for her approach to all Stages of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share