Deputy Liam Skelly is in possession.
Death of Member. - Malicious Injuries (Amendment) Bill, 1986: Second Stage (Resumed).
On a point of order, I would like you to adjudicate, Sir, on the sweeping and unfair allegations made by Deputy Skelly when he moved the adjournment of this debate.
This is not a point of order.
With respect, unless you allow me to bring to your notice the point of order which I want to make I do not see how you can fairly comment on it. I am referring to an unprecedented breach of privilege in this House by Deputy Skelly who made an unfair and sweeping allegation against Cardinal Tomás O Fiaich
Please, Deputy.
I want to ask the Chair——
Deputy, you cannot be on your feet when the Chair is on its feet. It is a well settled rule of this House that we cannot begin today's proceedings with a post mortem into something that happened last week or even yesterday. I cannot allow it. I will deal with anything that arises.
With respect, you were not in the Chair when the debate concluded. The allegations which were made on that occasion——
There is another ruling, Deputy. Deputy Hyland is abusing his privilege in the House. There is another ruling that the Chair does not review rulings of other occupants of the Chair, Deputy Skelly, please.
I want to say——
You cannot say.
——that I am unhappy with your ruling.
You may not be happy, Deputy——
The people may interpret the silence of this House as agreement with Deputy Skelly on that occasion.
The Chair has ruled. Deputy Hyland will resume his seat.
In relation to the Minister's contribution on this Bill, I found it disappointing and extraordinary that he should spend 90 per cent of his speech on the exceptions to the Bill rather than the effects of the terms of the Bill and the general effect it will have in the community and on general business and small business. He has followed the trend of previous speeches he has made in the last few weeks in not arguing properly the need for this Bill but merely assuming that it was going through the House by introducing it in the first paragraph, going on to talk about the exceptions and telling us it is here, it has arrived. I would have thought that it would have been necessary in making such a major change in insurance law which affects malicious injuries to try to set out the case for it. The case that he attempted to set out in the Courts Bill was alone the same lines. It might indicate that it was coming from the same Department, the Department of Justice, and that he felt it was really unnecessary to prove it, that it was a fait accompli, something that the Government had intended to do and that it will be carried out. The key to his argument is contained in the first paragraph in which he said:
In August 1984 the Government announced as one of a number of measures aimed at reducing public expenditure the termination of the malicious injuries scheme contained in the Malicious Injuries Act, 1981. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to that decision by replacing the existing scheme with a new scheme under which compensation for malicious damage will be available in a limited number of circumstances only.
He went on to talk about that limited number of circumstances and the machinery he is setting up in order to put them into effect. Maybe it was unintentional, but more respect than that is due to the House and as thinking people we would like to see the arguments for bringing in this legislation and not simply to hear that the intention is to reduce public expenditure because this is what we generally want to do in any event and a very handy £20 million is there in the cost of claims relating to 1985 which we will be able to pick up in order to help the economy.
After those two sentences the Minister went on to talk about the new scheme and the protection it will give in a very limited number of cases and these new arrangements that we have first of all from recoupment from the Exchequer of compensation awards by local authorities under this new scheme — I suppose that is the sweetner. He said that under the new arrangements damage to property will be compensated in three circumstances: (1) where the damage is caused during a riot; (2) where it results from an act committed maliciously by an unlawful organisation; and (3) when it results from an act committed maliciously by an organisation outside the State.
Under normal circumstances — if we take it for the moment that normal circumstances do not obtain in that there is an element of terrorism and there are unlawful and illegal organisations operating in the State and very much so in the northern part of the country — there would be very few instances which would give rise to a claim because we are depending on riots which are civil disorder, on unlawful organisations or an organisation from outside the State to cause this damage. One could almost say in truth that in the normal course of events we will have no need to call on these exceptions. However, the Minister goes on to talk about the exceptions for the remainder of his speech in total. That is extraordinary. What is worrying everybody is, of course, the removal of this protection from malicious injuries and that this £20 million would be passed on to a section of the community, in many cases, probably mostly, to the hard pressed businesses in the community, and in most cases to those people who are fortunate or unfortunate enough, depending on how you look at it, to be resident in or have a business in or around built up or city areas.
The Minister pointed out that insurance companies may refuse to give cover for malicious damage in some individual cases but we get no consolation from this point that he makes because he merely points out that it is very likely that similar difficulties exist already in relation to other insurable risks and that if a problem arises in an individual case the Department of Industry and Commerce will be prepared to examine the matter to see what can be done. Is that a promise? Is the Minister saying the Department of Industry and Commerce will do something about it or are we creating more bureaucracy? Are we being unfair to the Department and their personnel who will be at the other end of the complaints line? The Minister has not made any concrete proposals because he does not say what will happen in the event of insurance companies not providing cover in certain circumstances. I can see abuse being meted out to those officials.
Has the Minister consulted the Minister for the Public Service because the Department of the Public Service have been doing a public relations job to try to improve the relationship between the Civil Service and the public? They have been successful in this regard because we do not hear about the 97 per cent of successful outcomes to complaints but only about those who are dissatisfied with the service. This Department, like the Department of Social Welfare where, no matter what you do, you are likely to incur the wrath of someone, will cause a problem. We do not know if the Department of Industry and Commerce are prepared to get into the area of risk. Perhaps this can be dealt with on Committee Stage.
During the last year or so this problem was also discussed in regard to banks who are not prepared to take up risks. Other Members and I suggested that the Government should step into that area either by subsidising the banks or by stepping in themselves. They did so by setting up the National Development Corporation. In this area, the Minister should also be more specific and decide whether the Department will become involved because it is obvious that there will be problems in cases where insurance companies refuse to pay. This happens at present in the case of young drivers who are refused insurance expect at exorbitant rates which make it impossible for them to avail of it. Whole areas of cities and towns will be a no man's land as far as insurance companies are concerned.
It is very easy to point out those areas in Dublin. There is a high crime rate and malicious damage is carried out at the drop of a hat. As usual late on Saturday I left my home in Dublin west to buy the newspapers and I counted five bus shelters which had been smashed. This was due to the actions of the crowds coming from the fireworks display. I read that blocks were thrown through windows of business premises around the city and the corporation were blamed for not clearing away the building material before the weekend. I am just pointing out the level of vandalism and malicious damage. People passing by see a pile of bricks and throw them through a window. Not alone is the window smashed and its contents damaged but there may also be a loss of property because of a subsequent robbery. There will be whole areas of Dublin which cannot be insured.
The insurance companies are having a field day in Dáil Éireann because we are bending over backwards to change the law to suit them. We are even abolishing juries in civil cases and, as a bonus, we are getting rid of compensation for malicious injuries which means that premiums will be much higher which, in turn, means more profits for the insurance companies. Insurance companies do not deserve any help from this or any Government to make more profits. That is what it is all about and no matter who is involved, the unfortunate victim of a road traffic accident, a person injured at work as the result of an industrial accident, an inner city householder or business occupier, the insurance company will take their pound of flesh.
Insurance companies must be one of the most despised industries in the world and they should examine their consciences to find out why people have so little praise for them. It is not very difficult to find the answer because, as far as personal injuries are concerned, it is obvious that their massive resources are not used to educate the public as is the case in regard to other companies. Insurance companies do not try to influence people in regard to abuses of the Road Traffic Act. The same applies to malicious injuries. They do not try to educate younger members of the public in regard to vandalism and juvenile delinquency. However, they commit a certain percentage of their resources towards marketing and advertising. As I said on the Courts Bill, they should direct some of their resources towards educating the public in regard to black sports, defective cars and driving under the influence of alcohol. They could do a marvellous job in counteracting other companies who are trying to get everybody to drink their heads off. The insurance companies should be in competition and should advocate drinking tea, taking part in quizzes and games and getting away from the pub mentality.
Insurance companies should also do something to reduce insurance costs in industrial and road traffic accidents. In regard to malicious injuries, they should direct their advertising and marketing people to convince young people that they should develop other interests. They should also provide facilities for them. It could be made widely known that a certain insurance company had set up this project for the youth in an area like, for example, Dolphin's Barn. The insurance company would thereby be encouraging the youth to enjoy themselves in a harmless way and at the same time keep from becoming involved in causing malicious damage and so on. That is only a suggestion which I am sure will not be acted upon.
The Minister's arguments is even weaker than the one used to abolish juries in civil actions. He says that in the final analysis no insurer can be compelled to underwrite a particular risk but that advice may be available from the insurance company to the person seeking a policy to reduce the risk to enable it to be covered. That is the height of naivety. Acting on such advice might cost more money than whatever they are trying to insure is worth. It might involve rebuilding a premises, calling in consultants, burglar alarm companies, adding new roofs and reinforced doors and all sorts of other things. The insurance company do not give two tuppenny damns whether the person looking for insurance can afford to do that or not.
Does the Minister not realise that a business, or even a householder, in the city area cannot afford to be without insurance, although there are lots of them without insurance at the moment? I know places around the city of Dublin where companies really take a chance; they put up signs saying one does everything at one's own risk. They say they are waiting for the first court case to hit them and when it does they may not be able to do anything about it but will just fight it and if they have not got the money to insure or to pay up they will close down and let go. That is not positive thinking.
I have not gone near the areas Deputy Woods touched on in his submission and I do not intend to repeat what he said. He took up the problem of schools. If there was consistency in the various Departments one could excuse it. I have asked many times for the education equipment grants, which are 80 per cent, to be extended to burglar alarm systems or security systems for schools and have been refused. I am told that, unless it is part of the building plans and unless the alarm system is put in during the course of building, they do not qualify for these grants. The cost to schools all over the city is so enormous that they have taken all the glass out and replaced it with perspex or some kind of thick plastic. Equipment is locked in strongrooms and people come in and just knock blocks out of the walls to get into the strong rooms to remove VDUs and computers and all the other equipment or smash it up.
Bills for schools are enormous. The insurance companies are taking advantage of that just as they have taken advantage of the construction industry over the last number of years. The reason they increased insurance for the construction industry above that for other businesses is that they say that they will not get accurate figures of the turnover and wages of the company and the premium is based on that. They do not accept that they are getting accurate figures so they increase the rate to about six or seven times what it is in other businesses. That is the method the insurance companies operate.
The Minister is, in effect, handing us over to the wolves and we will be devoured. They have no motivation other than to make profits. Insurance companies do not care what happens to the community or to individuals. This is witnessed by the fact that they have not directed any of their funds towards community help, to reducing the risk. They will only do this if they think it will pay them dividends. They have not done it in the case of motor insurance or personal injury insurance and they will not do it in the case of malicious damages. God help anyone who has to rely on them.
I am sure this is not the intention of the Minister but I am certain that this measure will reduce employment because most companies are under-capitalised. To get off the ground they usually operate out of cash flow and are usually short of capital. As the Minister for Finance pointed out, that is the problem of most companies here. Just as we have 20 per cent of the motorists driving around without insurance because of the high cost, businesses will have no insurance and they will not survive. The responsible members of the community, therefore, will not be able to get involved and will be unable to pay the premiums. There is now a monopoly for the insurance companies who take the best.
It will not help the deprived areas of the cities or towns because companies will locate in different areas. Insurance companies look at an area and decide that it is a bad risk from their point of view and will not even come out and assess a premises. If they are persuaded to come out and assess the premises they want it practically rebuilt and it will cost a fortune. If a company does all that and still manages to stay in business and has a claim against the insurance company the premium will rocket the following year. This happens every year. This is not guesswork. I was involved in many businesses myself and often did not make claims simply because it was better to suffer the damage than have the insurance premium go up. That becomes an overhead and the profits have to be reduced. That is why I say this little sentence about advice from insurance companies is very naive.
If this matter had been researched properly and if the Minister and his officals knew what the problem was, the sentence with which I am quarrelling would not have been inserted. I do not mind people having red faces because we all make mistakes; it happened also in connection with the Courts Bill on the removal of civil juries. The Minister was using 19th century Acts to attempt to prove that the public had got rid of civil juries in most cases and that juries were used only in the Circuit Court. I pointed out to the Minister that the public had never been consulted during the 19th century, that Parliament was run from Westminister. This was not properly reported on the last occasion, but my argument was that it consisted in the main of landed gentry, aristocrats who were elected by means of rotten boroughs throughout Britain. These were the people who removed civil juries from those cases, because they themselves were being affected. The wealth of the country consisted of property and since they controlled that wealth they were powerful enough to remove civil juries. The trading classes who owned the mills and factories became the moneyed classes and they kept that system. The ordinary Joe Soap did not remove the civil juries.
We are trying to promote an atmosphere of enterprise in the country and in the community but we cannot do so if we cripple those who are trying to get a business going. It is very difficult to contemplate getting into business. Any business which uses transport or which depends on insurance cover is impossible to get going. The money is being handed over to usurers, unscrupulous people whose interest is not the promotion of business but the making of money. The Minister tells us that he is terminating the malicious injuries scheme but does not give any argument for this decision. This is a big topic but his speech went to only nine pages. An attempt was made to stop Deputy Woods speaking. He was told he was speaking for too long and monopolising the debate, but he had a very detailed, prepared speech and had all the facts and figures.
I defy the Minister when replying to give us an argument for this decision. The first part of his speech mentions that this Bill is being brought in to reduce public expenditure and the rest deals with the exceptions and ends in the faux pas of bringing our law into line with that in England and Northern Ireland. Every piece of legislation brought in by us depends on England. I thought we wanted to get out of line with that country. I advise the Minister to tell the House why he is bringing this legislation before it and we could then decide on that basis.
It is very dangerous to continue along the path of taking this House for granted and not proving a case. This matter did not come before a committee of the House, or, as in Canada, before a caucus of the Government party. It is not considered important even that the Minister be here. This legislation is intended to get though on the nod, as the numbers game will play a part. While the intention is good, how many times would the Minister be prepared to remove a Bill from the Order Paper, or withdraw a Bill which was going through the House, or change one substantially? Usually there are just cosmetic changes to save face. That is the unfortunate situation. I received no prior notice about this legislation, any more than I did for the Lotteries Bill which will come before the House tommorrow. This has happened in other cases also.
I am very saddened at the way the civil juries Bill was presented. The insurance companies got their act together in about two weeks, which proves the enormous influence they have. They are now doing the same with regard to the Malicious Injuries Bill. I can tell the House with certainty that insurance premiums will go through the roof. The insurance people will have a field day. If we want to encourage business and maintain businesses around the city areas, we will have to become involved. We will have to subsidise security watches on the main schools, subsidise insurance in particular areas and perhaps subsidise people in business to take out the necessary premiums. If that is the case, a substantial amount of the £20 million will be spent in such subsidisation.
There is another area at which the Minister should look very carefully, which is taking steps to reduce the £20 million. He could ask how the amount managed to go from £3½ million in 1979 up to £20 million in 1985. What monitoring goes on in the Departments with regard to payouts? I know there can be appeals to the courts, but who decides if a claim is serious enough? On the last occasion I mentioned that people are wont to look for an opportunity to make malicious damages claims. One individual ran a company from New York by telex on a daily basis. Some corrugated sheets were blown down on the previous night and the managing director sent a telex describing this. A telex was sent back asking if he could claim insurance damage. The reply went back that he could not, that there was no damage done. Several telexes were sent asking him to claim damages, so eventually damages were claimed. Claims under such circumstances could be reduced. The spread would then be much more even across the board. There are serious flaws.
The Minister mentioned the three exceptions which were, unlawful organisations, organisations outside the State and riots. He concentrated on how good the effect of the Bill will be in those areas. If we had a normal, stable, steady society, there would be very few claims under those circumstances. Who wants to be assured that damages will not be paid out unnecessarily in those areas? What is omitted from this Bill and from the Minister's speech is more important than what is in it. I will not go into those areas because it is a red herring. It is very unfortunate. I would like the Minister to tell us if he was given the speech. I know the Minister is very thorough.
I have passed the stage of frustration in this House. From 3.30 p.m. I waited to try to raise a question on the Adjournment and I have just received notice to say that because it was not in until after 4 p.m. I could not raise it on the Adjournment. The tributes to the late Deputy Coughlan and the Order of Business did not finish until 4.15 p.m. Technically the Government got out of it. I was the only person who raised a question for debate on the Adjournment and this is what we have to put up with in the House. I cannot raise the Fr. Molloy case on the Adjournment. We have not been consulted about the legislation before us. It is not properly argued and we are asked to vote on it.
What kind of way is that to treat the House? On a technical matter the establishment in this House and in the country are trying a massive cover up. There was no possibility of asking to raise a question on the Adjournment before 4.15 p.m. because the Order of Business was not introduced until after 4 p.m. The Government do not want democracy to prevail. I cannot raise a legitimate matter like the death of Fr. Molloy in this House because the establishment and everybody else are playing cards together and want it covered up and smothered. They are succeeding in doing so. I will try to raise it again. It is a disgrace. As a Member of Parliament I am ashamed of this action. The circumstances under which this man died have been covered up. To deny me the right to speak on this tonight——
Deputy Skelly, you indicated that you will raise this elsewhere. It is not relevant to the Bill. I ask you to come back to the Bill.
I will come back to the Bill. I am just pointing out that I have been silenced once again from raising a matter of public importance. No other Deputy in the House tried to raise a matter on the Adjournment so there was no competition from anybody in the House. There were about 120 Deputies present——
The Deputy should come back to the Bill.
I am coming back to the Bill. I am making a passing reference.
You should get back to it.
I am coming back to it. No other Deputy in this House raised a matter today so there was no opposition for the question on the Adjournment. I have been refused permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment. A man lies dead with a pall hanging over his name and the Church, the establishment, the DPP and this House have covered it up.
The Adjournment Debate has nothing to do with this Bill.
I was not allowed to raise it——
The Deputy will not raise it now, either.
I will raise it before I leave this House at the end of July.
The Deputy will not raise it on the Bill while I am in this Chair.
I appeal to the people in my constituency and other constituencies to keep supporting me so that I can raise these matters.
You will not raise it here and I will not take any threats.
The Chair will not stop me——
I will stop the Deputy in this House.
I will fight for social justice.
If you are not prepared to speak to the Bill I will suspend the sitting.
That is up to the Chair.
I will do it.
I have to do the job I was elected to do.
You are not doing the job.
I am going to raise this matter about Fr. Molloy——
You are not raising it here and now. If you are not prepared to come back to the Bill I will adjourn the House.
That is up to the Chair.
If you continue I will do it.
I am just making the point that I sat here from 3.45 p.m. until 4.15 p.m. and I could not raise the matter any other way. I have now been told that I cannot raise it.
Are you coming back to the Bill?
I am coming back to the Bill.
Right now.
Yes, right now. If this is the way we operate in Dáil Éireann it is no wonder television and radio are not allowed in here. We support the establishment in practically everything we do. We respond to the establishment in this measure. It will be to the benefit of the insurance companies and the poor sucker, the member of the public, will have to pick up the tab. We removed civil juries in the Courts Bill for the benefit of the insurance companies, also the establishment. We respond to the establishment when the Church decides to intervene. We respond to the establishment in everything we do whether it is the professions, the legal establishment or whatever. We now have a Bill lobbed into the House with no arguments to prove why we should pass it. Nobody is shouting for arguments. The same happened with the Courts Bill. No argument was produced as to why we should remove civil juries. Who will benefit from it? The establishment. We want to keep the establishment going. The poor old Joe has no chance. The person who does not have any opportunity, educationally or career-wise, is the one who will suffer all the time when we introduce measures such as this and prevent other measures from being introduced. The professions are closed to him.
When a person manages to get through the net and comes in here to represent his constituents and tries to bring up matters of public and national importance, of social justice and of the administration of courts, he cannot do so because he is prevented by technicalities and by any means possible to stop him from speaking. This is a rubber stamp House. We will be asked to rubber stamp this Bill later tonight. There is strong opposition to it.
We set up our courts system and we are responsible for the performance of that system. We may have independent judges and I am glad we have. There is no monitoring system. We have an independent DPP. This office was set up recently. That has brought a measure of honestly to the system. The Garda are being pummelled and blamed for non-prosecution of cases. It is not their responsibility. It is the DPP's responsibility. The DPP has not carried out his responsibility in the case of Fr. Molloy.
If you refer to that again I will adjourn the House. I will not say it again.
We are talking about juries and courts and malicious injuries.
I am making my position very clear.
We are talking about malicious injury.
I have repeated it and I will not repeat it again.
I am not responsible for how you conduct the Chair.
You are responsible for your own activity on the Bill we are discussing. I am not responsible for what you are saying.
I am trying to carry out my remit.
Within the ambit of the Bill that we are discussing.
I am doing it at a great personal cost and because I was entrusted to do so by 120,000 people. I hope they feel that I am at least trying to air in this House the issues that concern them. I am trying to make this a better country and a better place to live with a fair system of laws and with a proper system of administration of justice so that everybody will get a fair and equal opportunity in education and careers. The country and this Parliament should not be run for the benefit of the few. We should all have a chance. It is necessary to raise uncomfortable matters. This country is very good at sweeping things under the carpet. If we ignore it, it will go away. It will not go away. These things will crop up again.
We should not be concerned about how we rate in the eyes of the world but how we rate when we look into the mirror each day. When we examine our own consciences and the so-called Christian ethic which we keep reminding ourselves of, the island of saints and scholars and all that bunkum, we find it is nothing of the sort. If there is anything worse than narrowmindedness, it is intolerance. This country is full of it. When a measure such as this comes up or when the Courts Bill or anything related to it comes up, people are entitled to be represented and have their voices heard. If there is disquiet out in the land, it has to be silenced. The only way it can be silenced is with justice. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done. In any case where it is not seen to be done, we have a problem. We should address that problem. A person who has a sense of justice should speak out whenever a situation arises which to him is unfair and something is not clear, especially when the good name of one of our citizens is involved and he is getting unfair treatment. One human being is worth fighting for to get the system right.
I would ask the Minister to reconsider the effects of what he is doing in this legislation. The long term effects are not spelt out but in the short term he is suggesting that we might save a few bob. I am asking at what cost. The Minister has not produced one good reason for its removal. There are different ways of cutting high costs. We are not going to benefit in the long term. I do not give a tuppeny damn for Britain. When it suits Members of this House they quote statistics from other countries no matter what we are talking about, be it the Criminal Justice Bill or divorce. Our model is Britain. No matter what Britain does, we must follow. This indicates that we have very little initiative of our own. Maybe it is true that we have little initiative, but we have not to ape the British.
I do not want to repeat much of the research work which Deputy Woods has raised. According to Deputy Woods our community centres and sports halls have borne the brunt of malicious damage. When we get in the £40 million from the poor which we will get over the next year after the National Lottery Bill has been streamrolled through the House, where is it going to go? It will go into community centres, sports halls, recreational centres, and arts and culture which very few people know anything about. This Chamber has a sorry record on arts and culture. It knows nothing about arts and culture. It has done nothing about them and now it is going to raise money for them. When we do that, claims for malicious damages will come in from these magnificent centres, which will cost millions of pounds, and the insurance companies will stack them up. How long term is that? The State has to get involved in the control of crime and in the promotion of good behaviour by the general population. It has to direct and educate them and spend money so that they do not become vandals and there is no increase in the amount of malicious damage which takes place in the community. To pass this Bill when crime and vandalism are at their highest will send a sky rocketing bill back into the community. I do not see the good sense in that.
Suppose, for example, there is a saving of £5 million to £10 million out of that £20 million, is it worth it? I do not think it is. We should bring the insurance companies in and have a talk with them. We should say to them that we know they are entirely ruthless and do not care tuppence about what happens to anything or anybody, that they are here to milk it for every penny that they can get out of it, that they abrogate their responsibilities at every hand's turn. When the motor insurance payouts started getting too high they opted out and did not pool their resources and the money they were getting from property investments etc. and take the cost of motor insurance out of that pool.
We should tell them they should give reasonable rates to the punter. They invest the punter's money in properties and blue chip investments, and in other things from which they make enormous money. Because they make that enormous money from the individual in the community they should, in fairness, give something back. They have given nothing back. I do not see why we should be helping them. Their arguments in relation to the removal of civil juries are pathetic. They are affecting the weakest members of our society, the badly injured, the sick and people with the most serious injuries imaginable. We have gone on to their side and are legislating against the most unfortunate members of our community. We should remember that.
In fairness to Deputy Woods, as I happen to have an interest in the areas he has contributed to in the past, his contributions on the legislation he has approached have always been very thoroughly researched. His arguments and many of the things he mentioned should have been in the Minister's speech but they were not. When we talk about breakages, robberies, burglaries, house breaking and fire damage, we are talking about the densely populated parts of the city and the huge number of unemployed. In parading goods and chattels in front of the noses of those who have not got anything we are risking further damage and break-ins. There is a need for this measure to stay on the Statute Books for at least a little longer or until it has been thoroughly investigated. If we had this out for general discussion for a few months and people had their say, I could understand its introduction. It could have been very skilfully drafted in the same way as the forthcoming amendment has been drafted with care and protection and with due regard for the citizens as a whole and the social good. This has not been done in that manner and it warrants a rethink. Somebody needs the courage to stand up here and say: "We have not given this sufficient thought. Let us take it back and think about it a little longer".
I do not believe we will ever see the hoped for reduction in car insurance premiums, first, because of the attitude of the insurance companies and, second, because of the provisions of this Bill. A tremendous amount of malicious damage is done to motor vehicles, accounting for 50 per cent of the total compensation paid. That is one area that could be tackled by the insurance companies and the Government. There must be lots of ways in which that position could be alleviated. One must ask: what will happen the motorist? Immediately one could cut the bill in half and talk about a figure of £10 million. But the only way the insurance companies will allow for that pay-out is to increase motor insurance cover costs. We should have no doubts about that. I have said before that I believe this is an area in which the Government should become involved. Indeed, in any area in which the private sector is not prepared to become involved — any area in which there is public need — the Government should become involved either directly or by way of subsidy. They should say to them: "If you want the cream only it is not on. We will not allow you to have the cream." In the same way as the Chairman of the Bank of Ireland decided that they would add a 3 per cent premium on interest charges for small businesses seeking increases — while not being prepared to take risks in that area — the Government should step in and nudge them out of the way, or encourage them to do so by way of subsidy. The same should apply here. We will suffer badly when these fellows are given their head. They will heap a £10 million transfer from the £20 million on to motorists' backs.
Many areas will suffer devastation as a result of the non-availability of insurance. People will move out of those parts of city areas with a high crime rate. The only people who will remain will be those who can afford full time, private, roundthe-clock insurance cover. The passage of this Bill will not help that situation. Rather will it encourage more crime in those areas because the criminals will know that malicious damage will not be wholly catered for by people seeking insurance cover. This will mean that criminals will increase their activity in those areas, occasioning more problems for the Garda and everybody else concerned.
It should be remembered that there are 1,300 arson attacks every year, which costs will have to be borne by the insurance companies. Why is it that insurance companies increase premiums on premises so much once a claim has been lodged? It appears to me that this point has not been taken into account by the Minister — at least it was not dealt with in his introductory remarks — or in the Bill itself.
Has anybody in this House ever had the experience of having gone to bed on a Thursday night wondering how they would pay their employees the following day, or of waking up in the middle of that night knowing that they could not pay their employees the following day? The same applies with insurance costs in the case of somebody worrying about how they will meet a massive insurance bill, knowing that if there is a claim made with regard to their premises that will occasion a huge increase in premium. Indeed, if one decides to insure the following year, those costs will wipe out one's profits, and one will end up with a loss. That cannot be good for anybody. That matter has not been given thought.
There is another point that should be stressed. Since I became a Member of this House I have been castigated for daring to criticise that idol amongst the plethora of semi-State bodies, the IDA, for having made the serious mistake of concentrating on attracting multi-nationals here to the detriment of small business. Having experienced the demise of Ferenka, Fieldcrest, Travenol, Mostek and a few others, with the loss of thousands of jobs, the haemorrhage that caused in the areas in which they were located, the IDA woke up, decided to do an about-turn and endeavour to attract small businesses. When they ceased looking at the huge numbers, entertaining only the captains of the multi-nationals to dinner in the Berkeley Court Hotel and realised that the US economy was supported to the extent of 70 per cent or 80 per cent by small businesses, the penny began to drop.
I wonder would the penny drop with the Deputy.
I am dealing directly with this Bill.
I could not describe the Deputy's remarks as being directly applicable to the Bill. He has been talking about the IDA, Ferenka and Fieldcrest. I do not see what they have to do with the provisions of the Bill.
Malicious injuries are all about business.
The business before the House is the Malicious Injuries (Amendment) Bill.
Even poor old Harold Wilson, the former British Prime Minister, was about ten years ahead of the IDA in concentrating on small business. Many small businesses in this country are located in low-income areas. The only insurance available to them is that under the malicious injuries code. They run their operations on a shoestring. It appears there is such expertise around here on small businesses, but up to a year ago they did not even know they existed. Certainly they did not know how they operated. Certainly one would not have found it very easy to make an appointment with the IDA if one were a small Irish businessman. However, they have changed somewhat recently. They had done a tremendous public relations job — I think that is what they spend most of their money on — telling everybody what a great organisation they are. To that end they ran all of those advertisements on radio and television saying: "I am John Murphy; I have just set up another business down here with the help of an IDA grant; is not that great?"
I wonder would the Deputy adhere to the business of the House.
I am speaking directly to the Bill. This is about malicious injuries. I take it the Chair knows what malicious injuries are about and it is on that I am speaking.
The Deputy's version and mine seem to be at variance.
I can stand alongside anybody in the House and talk about malicious injuries and business because I had at least a dozen businesses once, all small, all affected by this.
The Deputy has not just been talking about malicious injuries.
I am just talking about malicious injuries.
That was not about malicious injuries. What the Deputy said was not about malicious injuries. What the Deputy said had nothing whatever to do with the Bill.
Small businesses and business generally are all about malicious injuries. Fifty per cent of the claims——
Would the Deputy stay with the Bill.
Fifty per cent of the claims come from motorists, the remaining 50 per cent being comprised of business people whose premises have been broken into or perhaps the odd private resident but mostly businesses. Small shopkeepers and business people who own small businesses located in streets in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick or Castlebar are the people who have their front windows smashed in some evening when a group of hooligans decide to drink too many pints. That is where the costs come into play. The owner of a small shop may find that the front window has been smashed on four successive days or perhaps four times in a period of a week or two. It costs hundreds of pounds for plate glass. Those people do not earn £20,000 or £30,000 a year. They work 12 or 16 hours a day, seven days a week and they are lucky if they make a wage from it.
We are now telling those people that they can no longer claim for malicious injury but must go to a usurer, that is, an insurance company, and seek insurance. When the company discover that the plate glass window was broken 15 or 25 times in the previous year they will charge a figure of about £5,000 or £10,000 to insure. That means in effect that the shopkeeper goes out of business. Premises all over the place in industrial estates and small back lanes are constantly broken into. The owners claim against their insurance and they also claim malicious injuries. They will be unable to afford the premiums in those cases and a lot of people will be driven out of business.
There are alternative suggestions but nothing can be done with this Bill, unless it is withdrawn and rewritten. The exceptions do not really apply and are not relevant to the problem. If a Bill has flaws or is not properly introduced to Members before it is brought into the House and an opportunity is not given to discuss it outside, Members have no alternative but to discuss it here. They have to be very constructive about it and forget momentarily about what side they are on. We should all be on the side of the citizen. People come first.
The Government should consider getting into the area of providing insurance at more reasonable rates or they should entice the insurance companies to do so by subsidy. In relation to the Second Stage of another Bill during the past week or so, I appealed to the Minister to answer certain questions and I said I would take particular note on Committee Stage. Unfortunately they were totally ignored. That is what gives the edge to one's contribution on Second Stage. One realises that one is talking to the seagulls and that nothing will be done but the Bill will be passed because of the numbers of Deputies.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the abuse of malicious claims. Payouts are sometimes made without sufficient scrutiny. There is room for improvement in that area and for a reduction in the cost to the State. This problem must be addressed. We must reform the method and streamline the payout. What are the Government doing about that? I hope the questions I raised will be taken up. I should like to know whether the Department of Industry and Commerce are going to step into the breach. That might help.
The Bill is seriously flawed and I cannot see that it would be acceptable. Deputy Flynn is ready to speak and I will be interested to hear what he has to add. The contributions I have heard so far have not been in favour of this Bill and I am keen to see if we can get something worth while from it. I strongly suggest to the Minister that he should not for the moment interfere with the malicious injuries claims system, except that he might improve the scrutinising and payout systems. He should certainly leave the system in situ.
I am sorry the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was not more generous to Deputy Skelly on the matter he wanted to raise on the Adjournment because it would have been enlightening to a lot of people and might have settled the matter.
I sincerely hope Deputy Flynn is not going to pursue that line.
No, but the serious allegations made by Deputy Skelly might have been answered rather than speculation continuing.
The Deputy will come to the Bill immediately.
If Deputy Skelly is not here to substantiate the matters he raised last week, he should withdraw.
I will not permit the Deputy to proceed on those lines.
Deputy Skelly says in relation to this Bill that the Minister has a very weak argument or no argument at all. He claims that the Minister is not in a position to state the special circumstances which would warrant the discontinuance of the malicious injuries code. There is a fair element of truth in that and it would be interesting to know if Deputy Skelly's views on this legislation are shared by any sizeable number of his colleagues in the Government parties. If so, it is very difficult to understand why the Minister and the Government should be pursuing this legislation through the House.
I take it that normal procedures have applied within Deputy Skelly's party in considering this legislation, but Deputy Skelly would seem to indicate that no great consideration was given by the Government parties before the introduction of this legislation. If that type of consultation in the party rooms has terminated, it raises very serious questions as to the way legislation is introduced and pursued in the House. Deputy Skelly is a very outspoken man on many matters. He was no more outspoken today than on previous occasions. He raises a lot of questions about the practice by the Coalition parties in the introduction of legislation.
Perhaps the Minister of State might like to reflect on that and if there is a difficulty as far as Deputy Skelly is concerned perhaps he might relieve his anxiety and give him a better understanding as to the Government's purpose in the introduction of this and related legislation. He seems to be at quite considerable variance with what is generally regarded as the unanimity of the Government parties. Perhaps he is just the tip of the iceberg.
We are being asked by the Minister to amend the system of compensation under the malicious injuries code as provided for in the 1981 Act. The Minister is asking us to remove the compensation for malicious damage to property except in certain defined cases such as damage resulting from riots or activities of unlawful organisations. The Minister devoted most of his speech to dealing with that aspect of the legislation. It is accepted by all that insurance companies, because of the impact of this legislation, rather than local authorities and the State, will have to carry the major burden of the premium increase that will ensue following the implementation of the legislation. Effectively that means that policy holders will have to pay the price later.
This type of legislation is appropriate in a time of great stability in the area of law and order but in a period of escalating crime, vandalism, arson and malicious burglaries, like now, to seek to remove compensation protection from the innocent victims is grossly unfair. This will lead to an extra burden being put on private property owners, school management boards and owners of business premises. The cost of insurance will increase dramatically. The Government appear to be having a double think on this. One week they introduce legislation in the hope that they will stabilise and, perhaps, reduce the cost of insurance but the following week they take a deliberate step that will mean a further increase in premium costs to all policy holders in the general insurance area. The Minister's proposal does not take any account of the difficulties in regard to general insurance. It has been agreed by all commentators in the media, the insurance industry, the CII, the IDA and other relevant agencies involved in the business and economic life of the country, that there is a general insurance crisis here which is having a serious effect on business, job levels and related matters. It appears that the Government are reluctant to bear that in mind when introducing legislation.
General insurance costs have become a major headache for motorists, householders and owners of businesses. The legislation before us will add to the misery. The Government should be trying to reduce insurance costs rather than adding to them. People have been led to believe that insurance costs will at least stabilise or at best that there will be no great increase in premiums as a result of the Bill passed last week to abolish juries in civil actions. That has proved to be a false hope in that now many of the people directly involved in the insurance industry have said that the general public cannot expect any great change in insurance costs.
Will the Deputy agree that it is not reasonable to go back on a Bill that was disposed of last week?
I am sure the Chair will agree that there is a distinct relationship between malicious injury compensation and the cost to be borne by insurance policy holders. The level of crime and malicious damage is a challenge to the Government and the law enforcement agencies but, as far as I am concerned, it is not an insuperable problem. If we are to overcome the problem we will require determined Government action, proper Garda funding, enlightened education programmes for teenagers in the cities and a reduction in the level of unemployment. If those matters were attended to I am satisfied that there would not be a need for the introduction of the legislation to abolish juries and malicious injury compensation. Until we, as a people, overcome the continuing national debilitation of unemployment we cannot hope to reduce violence, vandalism and malicious damage to property.
Passing on the cost to the unfortunate insurance policy holder is taking the soft option and following the negative policy of "out of sight, out of mind". The Government have to accept a considerable amount of criticism in that they are not addressing the problems I have referred to. They are continuing on an ad hoc basis, a day-to-day administration which is not effective in dealing with the problems that result in the huge malicious damage compensation claims. There are too many iron grids, steel bars and shutters fronting our business premises in Dublin city and in the main business streets in many large urban districts. Those city centre districts resemble war time fortresses and give our tourists a sad impression of modern Ireland. Our reputation as a friendly and law abiding society has suffered a severe dent in recent years. The legislation before us will only add to the desolation and desertion of Dublin city after dark.
The legislation must lead to shop closures, loss of employment and services to city centre dwellers. It will be a pity if more shops have to close and if those providing services for city centre dwellers have to move out because of the lack of insurance protection which will automatically ensue following the implementation of the provisions of the Bill. I thought all city representatives would have been as vocal as Deputy Skelly in opposing the legislation if only to maintain the commercial viability of the city centre and provide services there. There is no doubt that there has been a curtailment of those services in recent years due to the level of lawlessness in the city.
The hand of organised crime will be strengthened in the city and in the long run the State will have to pay more for crime prevention than the £20 million mentioned in the Minister's speech as the saving that will result from the terminating of malicious damage claims. It is bad economics in the Government's interests to talk about saving some millions of pounds by the implementation of this legislation when the Government will have to take strenuous steps to provide the necessary level of protection before the population return to the city centre.
Malicious injury compensation goes back to the Grand Jury Act, 1836. The system was introduced to deal with 19th century agrarian disturbances which were common in a number of countries. The system that evolved was a non-profit making one of communal insurance against malicious damage to property. The financing of that system has been the cause of a lot of criticism over the years. Up to 1963 the annual average rates charge was a half penny in the £ and it had advanced in 1969 to 8 pence in the £. In 1974, under the new statutory arrangement, it was increased to 20p in the £ as far as local authorities were concerned. Over and above that, it could be reclaimed.
The financial provisions in the Local Government Act, 1978, provided full relief from domestic rates, and local authorities began to be compensated by grants from the Exchequer. I do not think it is intended that any Government will go back on the 1978 legislation. Therefore, local authorities should be relieved of all responsibility for the payment of malicious injuries compensation. That has been a concern expressed during the years by local authorities who were strapped for money and who found it very hard to pay compensation. In one county council in the old days the figure was £78,000 in one year, a very sizeable impact at that time. The Government would get widespread support from local authorities and the House if they relieved local authorities completely of the onus in this respect.
There has been a general increase in criminality in our society and there is a suggestion that crime is out of control and that the Government are seen to have failed to protect the citizens and their property. Undoubtedly, the level of crime is unacceptable and it would appear that the Minister, in introducing this legislation, was more concerned and interested in cutting Garda overtime than offering protection to the citizens. People are genuinely terrified in their homes in many cities.
It is to be regretted in such circumstances that the Government would contemplate going down this road, which will make things far more difficult for citizens. Garda overtime is an interesting case in point. It has resulted in serious concern in many quarters. It is admitted now by the Department that there have been cut-backs in Garda overtime. Decisions on this have been taken in an arbitrary way. It is no good that the Minister for Justice says that £12 million was allocated for Garda overtime in 1986 and that there has not been a reduction this year as against 1985. He was right when he said that but, unfortunately, while there has not been any reduction in cash terms, the Minister is not facing up to the fact that £8 million has been spent already and that half of the year remains, the most difficult time from the security point of view, with only one third of the money left.
The Minister had a meeting recently with chief superintendents responsible for administering overtime and the immediate result was that some overtime was cancelled in May, but when the impact began to be felt at a time when a serious crime was committed, there was an announcement that whatever about overtime in relation to centre city duties, Border security would not be subjected to a cut-back. It was made quite clear then that future overtime would have to be costed in advance and necessary approval got from headquarters before overtime would be paid.
A debate on the Garda is not in order. It is in order to make a reference to it.
I was coming to the end of that aside. This is important because the Minister made references to levels of crime having a direct bearing on malicious damage.
The Minister's speech was quite short.
And his own backbenchers said he had not dealt fully with the subject. I had come to the point about cost effective policing and about letting the public know what is in store for them. I submit that we are providing inadequate policing, and the direct result is an increase in crime, much of it of a malicious nature. Therefore, one can understand the Minister's claim that £20 million will be paid out in compensation this year. This goes hand in hand with policing arrangements. The Minister indicated that the compensation will be substantially increased next year. It is patently wrong to allow the crime rate to escalate while withdrawing money from the Garda, and to provide Border patrols to police the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It is also a matter of book balancing.
The £20 million referred to by the Minister will be paid by somebody, but the Minister was not too clear about who would carry the load. In his speech he said that when difficulties arise, when people try to get insurance cover elsewhere, it is very likely that difficulties will arise in relation to other insurance risks. The Minister missed the whole point. It is not a matter of individuals being able to afford to get insurance. If individuals get insurance cover it will be at a very increased cost and they cannot afford that overhead in their businesses. The increased cost of insurance, therefore, will result in business closures and job losses. It is no good for the Minister to say individuals who fail to get an underwriter to undertake liability would be helped by the Department of Industry and Commerce. That is unconvincing double talk in regard to some kind of support system. It does not stand up, and even if the Minister can persuade insurance companies to take up the further load, they will do it only by increasing premiums.
That being the case, we can readily recognise that more and more people will carry the risk themselves. Inevitably that will lead to the point where individuals will not be covered and will end up, just as happened with regard to uninsured motorists, with the bureau carrying an enormous sum in respect of those who fail to do their duty. The same thing will happen with regard to public liability and employers' liability and then we will know about the escalating costs. However, it will be a matter between the business community and the insurance companies because the Government will have flown the nest. They may save £20 million but at what cost.
A considerable number of malicious injury compensation claims are made in the area of car insurance. An uninsured motorist today is costing each individual who pays his car insurance an extra £70 on his premium. The number of stolen and vandalised cars is increasing, as is the number of joyriders in the city. We were told by the Minister that they had tackled and somehow overcome that problem but it appears to be a continuing difficulty. There is a rampage of destruction going on in broad daylight so far as car vandalism is concerned. It was brought to my attention that on a recent Sunday in this city while a sad funeral was taking place some 90 cars in a row were vandalised in the sight of a considerable number of people. Of course claims will be placed against the insurance companies if the cars were insured and I take it if they were not insured someone will try to make a claim against the bureau. One way or another it will end up in malicious damage claims against the local authority.
Up to now local authorities had the benefit of the levy of 20p in the £ from the rates while the remainder of the cost was borne by the State. Now because the insurance companies will not be able to get reimbursed for the malicious damage claims made on them, they will seek to recover that extra cost by increasing the car insurance premiums for all their policy holders. To put it politely and mildly, so far as car insurance is concerned we are out of line with our competitors and our partners in the EC. The direct result of the elimination of the malicious injuries compensation system will be that policy holders will have to pay increased premiums in the immediate future.
A case has been made so far as schools, community centres and churches are concerned. So far as malicious damage to schools is concerned, it is a question of soaring statistics. The number of claims costing £10,000 and more has increased many times. There seems to be an element in this city determined on the general destruction of public property. I do not know the possible reason for this destruction but I know that the Government of the day have some responsibility in trying to minimise it and to remove it entirely. However, to date nothing substantial in the matter has been recommended or suggested by the Government or their law enforcement agencies. The only response to date has been the curtailment of Garda overtime and the removal of gardaí from the beat because of the shortfall in the Exchequer returns. I hardly think it is the best way to address the problem in the long term. It will be found that because of Government inactivity in the proper funding of law enforcement agencies there will be an increase in the number and size of malicious damage claims. Of course the Government will be able to write into their statistics on crime and on malicious damage that all that problem has evaporated, that somebody somewhere else has taken up the cover. Underwriters will be back in business so far as the increased loading of premiums is concerned.
There is no doubt that the insurance industry do not want this business. What industry would want to take on a guaranteed loss-maker from the first day? If they are to compensate themselves by way of premium income, without having further recourse to their investment income, they will have to apportion in straight figures the £20 million estimated loss this year on malicious damage claims to the policy holders under certain specific classes.
I will spell it out quite clearly. Because of our geographical location and small population in the west of Ireland, we have a very small incidence of malicious damage claims. Quite a different situation obtains there as compared with the major centres of population and we resent greatly that we will have to pay the same percentage increase on our policies as people in the cities. There is a definite urban-rural difficulty developing in that connection. It is a point that must be taken into account. The loss will be placed across the board in order to get the £20 million and that means that every policy holder in the country will have to carry the load for the difficult situation the law enforcement agencies are not able to handle here. The only reason they cannot handle it is that they have not got the cash for overtime, they have not the plant, equipment and the necessary manpower.
To me it would be the most logical thing in the world for a Government to wish they could say they had the crime wave under control. It is one area where a Government could come before the people and this House and say they had the crime wave and the level of vandalism under control but that it cost a lot of money. Does anyone think this side of the House could be antagonistic towards that expenditure? I doubt it greatly. Not alone would it be in the best interests of this city but it would be in the best interest of every policy holder and of the tourist industry and it would mean a saving under many different headings. Surely at the very least that must be attractive to the Government? Yet, their only response has been that they gave £12 million for overtime in 1985 and that is the end of the road so far as funding is concerned. If we take that to its final conclusion we see that the £4 million now left to cater for Garda overtime for the rest of this year means one thing: that there will be an escalation of crime in this and in other major cities and that can only lead to bigger claims for malicious injuries compensation.
There is no doubt that there has been an increase in the level of arson. Arson is crime's big growth area. It is generally recognised that a high proportion of industrial fires is caused by arson and that can be substantiated by reports written on the matter. In many of the cases referred annually to the IIRS for investigation it has been found that about 90 per cent contain a fire accelerant, normally petrol. These are published statistics. The Minister is aware that arson, and the level of arson, is quite a problem and is on the increase.
There are many fire tragedies, and we are all aware of the major ones, but the level of fire incidence has increased dramatically. It is important to get this in perspective and this can be done by this statistic: the material fire loss in 1966-67 was £2.5 million and the material fire loss in 1982 was £31.379 million. That is quite an increase. The number of deaths in those years has also increased dramatically — there were 20 deaths in 1966-67 and 47 in 1982. That is an indication that fire is a serious matter and if 90 per cent of fires have an element of arson, then this must have a serious impact on the level of malicious damage claims.
Loss adjusters are recognised as the professionals so far as determining arson is concerned. They estimated that 40 per cent of all claims in excess of £100,000 involved allegations of malicious intent. There are only three ways a fire can develop—accidentally, because of negligence, or it can be malicious. Until the 18th century a person who committed arson got the death penalty. Admittedly that was 200 years ago but that shows how seriously the legislators at that time considered arson and because it is on the increase, I believe very serious consideration must be given to malicious damage claims.
The innocent victims — the property owners — have no say in this. They are not negligent. The fire is not accidental; it is malicious. I do not see why they should be penalised for something over which they have no control. That is exactly what this legislation seeks to do. It seeks to transfer the responsibility for malicious injuries claims and compensation from the Exchequer to the individual and his insurer.
Insurability is very important in the case of the agricultural sector, and in particular agricultural property. Very little reference has been made to this. This has always been a difficult area. It is not as prevalent now perhaps as in the past, but land agitation is not unknown in this country and must always be a consideration in a major agricultural economy. This was not even referred to by the Minister despite the fact that over the years malicious injuries claims so far as agricultural property is concerned have been a very big contributor to the overall demand made on local authorities. It would be foolish because there has been a diminishing demand to ignore the possibility of the recurrence of malicious damage to agricultural property. Farmers are particularly vulnerable in this area.
There is not a great tradition among farmers of covering themselves adequately by insurance. In difficult times, after hard winters and hard springs, it would not be one of their priorities to be insured to the maximum necessary to give them proper cover. Overnight a farmer can face ruin with the malicious destruction of farm machinery, crops or stock. It is virtually impossible to protect farm property against malicious attacks because a farmer who is known to be the object of malicious attacks finds it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get any commercial insurance cover against the recurrence of such attacks. This is a vulnerable person so far as insurance cover is concerned.
Compensation for malicious damage is not exclusive to Ireland, as seemed to be suggested in the last part of the Minister's contribution. Various legislative instruments exist in other jurisdictions to provide compensation for malicious injuries in certain circumstances —"certain circumstances" being the operative phrase. It is not quite true to say that we are out of step with every other EC jurisdiction, and consequently that it would be just as well to throw overboard what we have, irrespective of whether it is useful.
Where are the other jurisdictions?
There is a compensation system in the United Kingdom, not as extensive as ours or under the same terms, but under certain circumstances compensation can be paid.
It is not comparable. Is there anywhere else?
Maybe it is not comparable but it is not true to say that malicious injuries compensation is a thing of the past everywhere.
Where else does it apply?
The Deputy will find the list in the 1965 report of the inter-departmental committee on malicious injuries. I will be leaving the book in the library and the Deputy may consult it later.
That was more than 20 years ago.
Deputy Taylor will have an opportunity to contribute shortly.
Deputy Taylor will agree that 20 years in the life of this House so far as reforming legislation is concerned is a short period.
You said I would have an opportunity to contribute shortly?
You will have an opportunity to contribute.
Deputy Taylor is one of the people who persistently comes in here trotting out statutes going back to the middle of the 19th century in support of arguments for and against a claim he is making.
It shows how much research I am doing.
Perhaps Deputy Taylor will give me the same support and say that I might have gone to some trouble to research this. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to cover the liability being created now exclusively by ordinary commercial general insurance. Insurers will be slow to consider underwriting certain risks, particularly to property which has been established as the object of malicious attack. This is one of the key, central issues. There are objects of certain types of property — and even certain individuals so far as the farming community and the business community are concerned — which seem to attract malicious injury. To say to those people suddenly that we are no longer providing for protection, security and compensation if attacks persist is grossly irresponsible and not giving fair play to the individuals involved. The Government know full well that once they pull this cover away the insurance industry will not be anxious to take on loss makers that they can establish from their experience as guaranteed loss leaders. Consequently, those individuals will be without insurance cover, and, if they are lucky enough to get underwriters to take liability at all, it will be at such enormous cost that it will result in further closures and job losses The owners of properties in high violence areas and high incidence burglary areas are already finding it difficult to get suitable insurance cover. Now they will find it impossible due to the reluctance of insurers to quote or, if quoted, they will find that the premiums demanded are totally unacceptable.
That has been confirmed by the leaders in the insurance industry. They know full well that the demands they are making now in order to maintain their solvency margins and in order to keep their reserves in line with the certificate of licence issued by the Department promoting this legislation will mean they have to put more and more money by to meet the escalating claims. The only way they can get that is from two sources, from premium income or their investment income. Invariably now the premium income of the insurance industry has to be topped up from their investment income each year and the investment income is decreasing and diminishing.
They had a good income until now.
They had.
They claimed back under the local authority for malicious injuries.
Yes, they always claimed back but the local authority was involved for only 20p in the £ anyway against their rating, and of course they claimed back. Now they will not be claiming back. They will be putting it onto the general insurance policy holders and not on a selective basis. They will be putting it on the general body of policy holders, and that includes everybody no matter in what part of the country you live. Even though the level of incidence of malicious damage may well be nil where the Minister of State comes from, his neighbours will have to pay the tax burden of increased punitive premiums because of this legislation.
The only other area it can come from is investment income. While that is being kept up at a reasonable level, it is being kept up there only by increased money being put on reserve. What with decreasing interest rates it means that they are finding the reserving more difficult each year. Certainly we want no more insolvencies in the insurance industry. We have had two pieces of emergency legislation here that the good Deputy Mervyn Taylor was very eloquent on at the time, and I do not think that we will have to endure that again.
They will have to cry for the insurance companies——
We are not crying for them.
——because of malicious injury.
It is much better to cry for them in here than when one of them goes insolvent and then we come in here and put hundreds of millions of pounds extra on the taxpayers' backs.
The Deputy knows why they went insolvent.
Deputy Taylor will have his opportunity.
He is being provocative, but I like it. He can tell us all the good reasons that he thinks our two major insurers got into difficulty in the past few years. He has told us anyway, but nobody believes him. If people had believed him they would have taken up suggestions he made, but they have been at pains to tell the good Deputy Mervyn Taylor that he does not understand the niceties of the insurance industry.
We do not want insolvency in the insurance industry. That industry are not going to take on the loss leaders. They will be reluctant to take on this extra liability cover. The underwriters will say: "If the Government are washing their hands of the innocent victims of malicious injury compensation claims, then we will provide the cover at a price." Only one sector can take up that price and that is existing policy holders. It is a little unfair of the Government, when they cannot put their own House in order in the enforcement of law and order with the level of crime and vandalism, to pass on glibly, for the sake of their book-keeping Exchequer exercise of getting the balance of £20 million extra into the funds, all that extra hardship and those extra job losses and business closures on the unfortunate commercial sector.
The existing picture in some city centre areas is that commercial properties are being devalued as well as being uninsured. Jobs are being lost. Recent interviews on the national TV network have established that normal living is being disrupted due to the unbridled vandalism and racketeering in some city areas at this time. Nobody denies that that is the case, still the Government follow their policies relentlessly. There are areas where the rule of law does not apply, and there is no point in hoping that law and order breakdown will go away. Unfortunately, that has been the policy adopted by the Government recently. The resources must be given to the Garda to restore normal living patterns in these areas. Only then will insurers regain confidence in covering liability in those areas.
The insurance industry has no objection at all, no reluctance to taking on extra cover. That is their business by way of getting increased premium income, but they can do that successfully and stabilise premiums only if they are guaranteed a reasonable level of law enforcement. City centre traders are fearful for their future, safety and commercial viability. Asking them to negotiate their own protection with a reluctant insurance industry is grossly irresponsible at this time. It is also playing into the hands of the protection racketeers who see a ready made opportunity to practise their extortion rackets on the unprotected business sector.
For years there has been agitation for the repeal of the criminal injuries code. Certain interdepartmental committees sat on it — some of them up to 20 years ago, and that was the last time they sat on it — but there have been many references to it since then. Of course, they listed many of the reasons that it was necessary to maintain the criminal injuries code. Many cases were made as to why it should be transferred to the insurance industry because it was felt by some that it was an insurance matter. Perhaps it is, but not in the circumstances that exist at this time because of the hardship it will inflict on certain sectors who cannot bear the demand.
Local authority members will confirm that most of the arguments have been in favour of shifting the responsibility from local authorities to the State. That has been the thrust of the argument for many years and I support it. It should also have been contemplated now because it would relieve many local authorities who have been beggared by cuts in Government funding and would have put the onus of responsibility on the Government to produce the circumstances and the climate where they would not have to pay the sum of £20 million. The Government can save this sum any time they like when they get the crime rate figures down to the levels of 1976, reduce the figures for arson and malicious injuries claims. The Government will not then have to meet the compensation from which they are now running away.
There is general acceptance that the malicious injuries code should stay. This has been expressed not just on this side of the House but from Government backbenchers. They berate Government legislation, but when it comes to voting they merrily support the Government. I wish they would stay out of the House instead of contributing in that way because they are making a nonsense of Government responsibility. The Government are supposed to bring legislation to the notice of their backbenchers before they proceed with it but that is a load of bunkum, — it never happens.
Because of the nature of the offences arising from the destruction of property the State is the proper authority to discharge the liability and innocent ratepayers should not have to meet the cost of compensation. Making it a national charge would spread the compensation more evenly and it would not end up as a punitive tax on certain sectors. Spreading it evenly is the most equitable way of dealing with any national charge. The Government are not responsible for anything in so far as the final load is concerned although they always had measures available to them to reduce it at will if they provided the necessary funding for law enforcement agencies instead of telling them that they would have to introduce a certain type of cost effective policing which is entirely inappropriate to our circumstances.
I wish to refer to statistics in regard to lawlessness. In the crime report for 1984, figures show that there were 41,003 offences of burglary, aggravated burglary, robbery, arson and serious malicious damage to property. The detection rate was 30 per cent. In 1980, the figures was 24,878 and the number of offences detected was 10,246. Of that total number, 21,841 offences, or 53.3 per cent of all the offences under burglary, aggravated burglary and the others to which I referred were committed in the Dublin metropolitan area. In 1984 there were 2,655 cases of malicious damage of which 189 were cases of arson and only 49.5 per cent were detected. In 1983 there were 172 cases of arson, the equivalent of an increase of 9.9 per cent on the previous year. The problem is escalating, which means that the level of compensation claimed is also rising. The vast number of these cases took place in the Dublin metropolitan area and it is responsible for 57.8 per cent of the total crime in the State. Yet the Government are unable to cope with the level of crime in the whole country let alone on their own doorstep in Dublin where more than half of the crime is committed. That is where the biggest clawback in the funding of overtime is concerned. It makes no sense. All these matters are under the direct control of the Government; and, if compensation of £20 million has been paid in malicious injuries claims, only one group are responsible, apart from those who commit the crimes, the Government, for not taking effective measures which have been preached ad nauseam on both sides of the House and also by Deputy Taylor on occasions. He preaches but, alas, he does not vote against those who are contributing to the situation.
The Government have a case to answer in so far as the present level of lawlessness is concerned. It is nonsense to talk about the reduced rate of indictable crime when you consider the base on which statistics are formed. Each year since 1978 there has been a dramatic yearly increase in indictable crime. Until the downward trend reaches the figure for 1978 and reduces further, we cannot report improvement or remain complacent about the crime figures.
Surely the figures did not rise during the Fianna Fáil years?
The Deputy seeks to provoke me but his provocation is ill-timed because he is participating as a member of one of the Government parties that is overseeing the greatest levels of crime and lawlessness since the State was founded.
We must remember that there were 99,727 indictable offences recorded in 1984, 12 per hour every day of the year. That is a frightening statistic because it means that in the hour I have been speaking 12 such offences have been committed, half of them in this city. When you put that into perspective you get some idea of the level of lawlessness which exists. Things could be improved if the proper plant, equipment and manpower were made available by a Government which understood or cared about the problem. Fewer claims would be made for compensation which would get across the House support for the measures taken to bring that situation about.
There has been a marked increase in the number of aggravated burglaries in which firearms were involved, 1,129, to be precise, in 1984. Of that figure, 440 involved firearms. Armed bank raids increased by 50 per cent last year. These are staggering statistics for a small country with a scattered rural population with one-third of the population in this city, and simply means that the law enforcement agencies are unable to cope with crime much of which is centred on the capital city. Let us take a look at the statistics in so far as stolen property is concerned and that which is recovered, because while it might not be substantial at least it should be referred to. In 1984, the last year for which the crime statistics are available to us, so far as property taken with violence is concerned, there were 31,903 cases and the value of property involved was £21,693,624; the number of larcenies in that year was 49,141 and the value of the property involved was £12,780,628. The grand total of cases is approximately 81,000 and the grand total value of property about £34.5 million. The total recovered was just £2,572,524. Seventy five per cent of the cases and the property involved go undetected or unrecovered. It can certainly be said that crime does pay in Ireland.
Transferring the liability costs of the whole code to the State would have many advantages. As a levy on general taxation it would be a cheap form of insurance against certain risks, many of which are normally not covered by insurance anyway. Many of the cases we will be talking about here henceforth, so far as the statistics in the Blue Book for insurance companies each year is concerned, will have a new column. So we will see that this area of cases and classes that had not been covered in the past will now have to be taken on board by the insurance industry and would simply mean a tiny sum on the individual for what is a general crime against society anyway. Any malicious injury is no more and no less than that. It also relieves the anxiety of persons who cannot arrange or cannot afford the insurance premiums to provide the necessary cover. It seems the fairest system possible that individuals are indemnified against damage in circumstances over which they have no control. What is now proposed is a money saving exercise for the Government. They are simply transferring the cost to the unfortunate taxpayer and insurance policy holder and doing it in a selective fashion, taking no cognisance of the taxpayer's ability to pay and seeking to convey Government lack of responsibility in the matter.
This legislation is ill-timed. Whatever case might have been made for it in a time of peace and security and stability on the streets, in the times we now live in it seems inappropriate. The Minister's argument has been poorly made and it has not been convincing. Anybody taking an objective view of what the Minister said in his very short statement, which will involve £20 million extra being placed as a burden on the backs of smallholders, car owners and business people, would say that a better ministerial or bureaucratic effort is warranted. That is sadly lacking in this case.
In simple political terms the Government do not deserve to get this legislation through. Perhaps the Minister is keeping his best wine until last, for his summing up and the Committee Stage. I think not, because most of his speech has been a Committee Stage response in that he has taken many of the sections individually and made his case. I am somehow motivated to the opinion that this was hastily done and in the support of some commitment or political arrangement and was not really seen as in the best interests of the country at large. In conclusion, I must support our spokesman, Deputy Woods. We will have to resist this legislation and put it to the test.
I just want to make a few brief statements about this Bill to abolish the malicious injuries scheme. The purpose of it is to relieve taxpayers generally of this burden which has been a rather strange and anomalous charge upon them for quite a considerable number of years. It is interesting to look back at the origin of the malicious injuries scheme and how it came about that this peculiar form of imposition was levied in Ireland. The origins of it are, of course, well known and it makes it all the more strange to see Fianna Fáil opposing this legislation. It was a punitive imposition on the people of an area where Republican activists had been fighting and causing damage in the cause of their fight during the years prior to 1916. The British authorities decided that, if the residents of Trim, County Meath, were causing damage, they could enjoy themselves there and they would put a rate for malicious injuries on the residents of Trim, County Meath, so that they themselves could pay for the damage done rather than having it paid for by the British Exchequer. Therein lies the origin of the malicious injuries scheme which we are now considering. That has continued, and it is because of those peculiar origins that this malicious injuries scheme is peculiar to Ireland.
That is not so, and the Deputy knows it.
That is the position. If the Deputy would read his history, that is the origin of it.
I read up this matter and that attitude was challenged by an interdepartmental committee in 1965.
We will have Deputy Taylor without interruption.
Yes, but the Deputy needs to get his facts right.
The good Deputy Flynn, sound Republican that he is, should know that the origins of the malicious injuries code were as a punitive measure on the Irish people to punish areas of Republican support by saying that, if the Republicans cause damage in an area then they, through their rates in the area where those people came from, will pay for it. This was a British institution and that is the origin of it.
It was introduced by the British in 1836.
That is why we have had this system in Ireland and there is nothing comparable to it in the United Kingdom or anywhere else that I know of. This system has grown to be a part of the landscape over very many years. But it has always been a rather strange feature of the Irish legal and local authority legal system. It has all been very strange and it is high time that it was re-examined and that is the reason for the measure. Is there any particular reason the malicious injuries code of itself should be singled out for the attention and liability of the ratepayers of an area or the taxpayers? One might say that if property is stolen from one that too should be paid for by the ratepayers of an area or by taxpayers generally. But nobody suggests that. Nobody suggests that we should have a compensation system of no fault if somebody sustains injuries and that ratepayers or taxpayers generally should provide for that. So it is an anomalous situation that should not continue in a Republican country. Its origins are suspect and it cannot be maintained in the present situation.
I want to say a brief word about the position of the insurance companies. They have insured people all along against malicious injury and have charged premiums for this. The good Deputy Flynn, spokesman for his party on matters of insurance, has researched this topic very well, back to 1965. He knows that his friends, the insurers, have charged substantial premiums, notwithstanding the fact that they have the benefit of the malicious injuries code behind them. They took in these premiums charged at an appreciable and increasing rate over the years. When the malicious injury took place they compensated the person involved, but they then proceeded to recoup what they had paid out from the ratepayers of Dublin, Cork, Mayo, or whatever area was involved. They had it both ways. I do not believe for one moment that the pitch of premiums that the insurers provided for in any way took cognisance of the fact that they would recoup from the ratepayers of the area in which the malicious damage and injury took place.
What is the Deputy going on about?
When this Bill goes through in the fullness of time, which no doubt it will notwithstanding the contributions and the continuation of the debate on the Bill for perhaps another day, there will be a responsibility on the Government and on the Minister to watch carefully what becomes of insurance premiums in this field and to ensure that there is no undue escalation of premiums on account of the abolition of this scheme, because the premiums are already charged for. I am not by any means satisfied that an adequate degree of supervision has been exercised over the years over the activities of the insurance companies. There is, or is supposed to be, vested in the Minister a general supervisory function over those activities; but, certainly, our experiences in this field would indicate that it has not worked very well. We have seen substantial losses accruing to the taxpayers generally through the activities of the ICI arising out of the failure of the Department to exercise that supervisory function in an adequate manner. Perhaps that was not their fault; that I do not know. Whether it was their fault or not, the fact remains that substantial losses have already accrued to taxpayers due to the failure of the ICI — I shall say nothing about the PMPA — and further losses will yet accure to the taxpayers from this source. For some people the withdrawal of the facility of recouping malicious injury losses from the local authority will present a difficulty. I concede that.
I thank the Deputy.
Nonetheless, that does not affect the generality of the proposition that the need to continue with the scheme exists, or that the scheme is fair or is appropriate. It behoves the Government to ensure, in consultation with the local authorities, that at least one category of people, namely, local authority tenants, are considered in a special way. They for the most part are not aware of the risks they run in so far as insurance, or lack of it, is concerned. I see no reason why the local authorities should not organise some mutual inter-insurance arrangement for local authority tenants and tenant purchasers, which would cover them in particular.
And to hell with the business people.
The final point I want to make on that matter is that it would have been a better idea to have phased it out, rather than abolishing the scheme in one fell swoop, having regard to the fact that it has existed for so many years. That should have been done many years ago when the good Deputy Flynn's party were in office and even beyond that.
The crime rate was not then as devastating as it is now.
The crime rate was always devastating. It has increased during the currency of this Government, has been increasing during the currency of Fianna Fáil Governments and will continue to increase for a long time until the economic problems underlying it are tackled in a much more radical manner than they have been up to now.
It would have been better to have phased the scheme out perhaps over a number of years to give people an opportunity to attune to a new situation. I agree that there has to be a new situation — it is fair that there should be — to relieve taxpayers of the burden of the £20 million, which is increasing.
Would the Deputy agree that local authorities should be relieved of the burden?
It is right that the insurance companies should take up what is their fair responsibility, they having been charging the premiums against malicious injury.
Should the local authorities not be relieved of the 20p in the £ demanded from the ratepayers, as a stepping stone to achieving that?
The charge, in principle, should be removed from the members of the public, whether they be ratepayers or taxpayers. It should rest on the insurance companies to bear the greater bulk of the burden. They have been collecting the premiums, in any case.
The insurance companies do not bear the burden; it is the policyholders who do. The insurance companies' money is our money.
The insurance companies have been escalating their premiums and it behoves them to carry the can for the money that they have collected. The Minister might yet consider a phasing out of the scheme to allow people to become accustomed to a new situation which will arise as a result of the abolition of the malicious injuries scheme.
The malicious injuries scheme affects every local authority and costs approximately 20p in the £. This charge should be removed from them. The local authorities are limited already by the fact that only approximately 20 per cent pay rates and this is a further burden. The removal of this scheme, saving approximately £20 a year, will necessitate substantial extra insurance and business people can no longer afford insurance cover. They have been faced with this problem over the last three to four years. Car insurance costs are now escalating out of all proportion. In the case of vandalised cars and the effects of joyriding, what will happen now? One must consider that in the city and throughout the country schools are being vandalised and community organisations and churches attacked. How will insurance cover be obtained in those cases? Up to the moment claims in these cases could be made under the malicious injuries scheme. The local authorities cannot continue to cope with malicious injury claims.
Debate adjourned.