I do not wish to have a dispute with the Chair but I feel it should be acceptable to demonstrate one's point. I will leave it at that. There is ample opportunity for job creation within the Government proposal to which I have referred. We are not maximising our efforts in this House, even within the framework of the existing schemes introduced by the Government, from the point of view of getting the best possible return in terms of employment.
If the Government had taken the decision to delegate to local authorities rather than trying to control schemes like this from national level, more employment could have been generated. Centralised bureaucracy is inhibiting the country in the creation of productive employment. I agree with many informed sources such as teachers, clergy, community leaders and workers that unless we can tackle unemployment we will have to provide more money for security, which is of its very nature unproductive. The Government should get their priorities right. We would get a far better return for the nation if, instead of having to provide vast sums of money for increased security, we made more advanced preparations in terms of legislation for investment in the economy for the purpose of creating productive employment.
The Government cannot have it both ways. One cannot allow crime and vandalism to be at the present unacceptably high level and at the same time wash one's hands of the effects of the deteriorating situation in society. Property, private and public, is no longer safe and is subject to damage by vandals. In different circumstances, given the present high incidence of vandalism one could envisage legislators seriously examining proposals to protect the citizens and property and to compensate for malicious damage. It would not be difficult for the Minister to envisage some Government bringing before this House proposals to safeguard the property, and indeed the lives, of the citizens. Yet this evening we are proposing to dismantle the only system through which people can have their investments protected from malicious damage. That is not acceptable. It is an abandonment of the citizens at a time when they are most vulnerable and least protected in terms of the safeguards they are entitled to seek from this House.
The malicious damages scheme as it operated up to now was tightly administered and there was no easy access to compensation until the case could be clearly established and fully proven. There was never the option of getting either easy money or easy compensation. Many have suffered serious financial loss because of what seemed to them to be excessive delays and unfair and tough State opposition to the claims. I am not saying it should not happen like that. The Government would be absolutely correct in contesting, as far as reasonable, any malicious damage claim, but the scheme was very tightly administered.
While this Bill may not of its nature be unconstitutional, it undermines the spirit of the Constitution which gives assurance to protect the citizens and property. I regret that the Government, at this of all times, should make this decision for whatever reason. I studied carefully the Minister's speech to see if I could find any justifiable or sustainable reason as to why the system should be changed. The cost of the scheme to the Exchequer was the only valid reason I could find.
Where is the social justice of a Government who would decide to cut back seriously on a scheme to provide personal compensation for the victims of the now rampant crime and vandalism? Within the past couple of months we saw the despicable performance of saving £1 million on this very vital and important scheme, the only legislation on our Statute Book providing some level of protection for the victims of crime. The Vote was in the region of £3 million and the Government decided in 1986 to cut that small amount by £1 million. This leaves the citizen vulnerable and unprotected in the teeth of crime which is raging at present. The Minister proposes in this Bill to extend that drastic measure to the point of dismantling the scheme for malicious injuries compensation. That is totally unacceptable at this time. If this Bill goes through the House, which I sincerely hope it will not, there will be no means by which individuals, committees and communities can be protected against damage to property. All this is happening in an environment in which the citizen feels helpless to protect his property.
In this city, and in most urban and indeed rural areas, people have to form local committees to protect themselves and their property. Security is a big business, costing industry and private property owners a vast amount yearly — not even considering the amount of money which has to be spent on equipment to provide security. Industrialists and business people will tell you of their worries in this connection and the trouble to which they have to go to protect their property. They will say that insurance cover, when they can get it, is becoming an intolerable burden and in some cases can be the straw which breaks the camel's back. I have known of small industries, even in rural Ireland, where the insurance premiums have increased at such a rate that the owners and operatives of the businesses no longer found them profitable. While trying to provide maximum insurance cover for their business, they were still under attack and losing money.
Did Members of this House ever think they would see the day when just down the road from Leinster House business premises would display a notice: "Please ring the bell for admission"? There are many businesses on the short stretch of road from Leinster House to Grafton Street displaying such notices. That is a frightening example of the level to which crime has risen and the insecurity of owners of such properties. It is totally unacceptable, given that kind of activity, that the Government should say they will not do anything about it. Did we ever think it would come to the point where firms would have to pay private security companies to protect their property?
The Government will say, as they are saying in this Bill: "Hard luck, but we are now going to leave you the victims of our inability to contain crime and you will have to bear the cost of any damage which occurs". Is there any justice or fair play in a system which would allow this kind of situation to develop? Is it any wonder that this House is being treated with a very high level of cynicism at present? Instead of looking towards this House for protection, the citizens will now be totally abandoned and left without any support or any security, particularly under the heading which we are discussing.
I referred to the risk at which community property is being placed arising not only from the level of crime which we experience but also as a direct result of this Bill if it passes through the House. We all know the high cost of securing insurance. We know that as a result of this Bill, and we have done a certain amount of research on it, insurance on schools in urban areas in particular will increase by 45 per cent. The cost of insuring the glass in these properties will increase by over 100 per cent. Fire insurance will rise by from 35 per cent to 40 per cent. These are all intolerable burdens being placed on local communities. There is no other means by which the necessary level of insurance to cover this property can be got except from the local communities concerned. Therefore, there will be an increased demand and an increased burden on local communities to provide insurance cover for the property for which they are responsible in their own areas.
It may not be generally known that in rural areas since 1982, which is only a few short years ago, insurance cover on rural schools and community halls has increased by 100 per cent. The reason the Minister is bringing this Bill before the House is the cost to the Exchequer arising from malicious damage claims. It is true to say that these claims have escalated from £5.6 million in 1982 to £18.7 million in 1985. That is a very substantial increase and a very substantial drain on State funds. Unfortunately, it also reflects the cost to the State of vandalism and crime. More frightening still, the Bill before us will transfer that cost and that expenditure from the State back to the individual, to the private property owner, the factory owner and the community organisations in terms of schools, churches and community halls. In many cases the people concerned will not be able to meet the level of insurance which is sought. That will create other problems which I will not go into in this debate.
I wish to refer to the cost of car insurance. We all know car insurance is at an intolerable level at present. All the indications from insurance companies and people who do research into this kind of work are that motor insurance will increase by at least 5 per cent on top of the present intolerable burden if this Bill goes through the House. Last year damage to cars amounted to 50 per cent of the total compensation paid out in malicious damage claims. Cars are no longer a luxury as far as the vast majority of the citizens are concerned. I say that particularly in relation to rural areas where, if a man or woman is lucky enough to have a job, it will be a considerable distance from their home which means they must have a car to get there. From their point of view a car is an agent of production. For that reason any increase in car insurance would be a detrimental blow to these people. I can envisage a position where, instead of trying to reduce the number of uninsured cars, we will have an escalation. Nobody wants to see that because uninsured cars and uninsured drivers are a menace on our roads.
By this method of trying to bring about a reduction in public expenditure the Government will lose substantially more under other headings. Community organisations, schools, churches, halls and GAA playing fields will all be seriously affected. This Bill, if enacted, will no doubt have serious repercussions for all these organisations and communities. Did anybody ever think we would see the day in this little country of ours, known as the island of saints and scholars, when churches would be locked during the day? People cannot gain access to churches for the obvious reason of damage by vandals. The pastors, priests and clergymen in all these churches find it necessary to turn the key in the door when no service is taking place. That reflects very seriously on this House and on our failure to come to grips with the problems of crime and vandalism.
I want to make it quite clear in highlighting today the unacceptable level of crime and vandalism and the effect which it has on malicious injury claims, that I am not in any way casting a reflection on the Garda who are doing a marvellous job. At present they are doing a job far beyond the call of duty in terms of protecting our citizens and their property. I know the Acting Chairman will remind me that I should confine myself to the Bill, but it is relevant to the extent that our gardaí at present are operating in an environment where, if they cannot perform their duties within the limits of the amounts of money available, they are expected not to do that duty. It is to their credit that, even when they cannot get overtime or adequate financial compensation for their work, they still beyond the call of duty, do the work which they have so ably undertaken on behalf of the State. Instead of trying to pinch money by way of a saving in relation to this operation which we are discussing, the Government would get a far better return by channelling more money into the protection of our citizens and their property.
In the long term, and this is where I have the greatest possible complaint about the Government, they would have been far better off to get their priorities in order and concentrate, as far as Governments can, on the creation of productive employment. We react to events after they have occurred and have to provide more and more money for State security whereas, if we had different priorities in terms of job creation, that security would not be necessary. I appeal to the Minister of State, as my colleague appealed to the Minister of State on the Courts Bill, to look seriously at the proposal before the House. It will have a detrimental effect on the economy, on individuals and on the community. Instead of contemplating taking the Committee Stage, the Minister and the Government should withdraw the Bill.
