Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Jun 1986

Vol. 368 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Malicious Injuries (Amendment) Bill, 1986: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Deputy Denis Foley reported progress. He is not here. If there is nobody on the Government side of the House offering, I will call Deputy Connolly.

We in Fianna Fáil are opposed to this Bill because it will be far-reaching in its consequences for our community.

Will the Deputies who are not taking part please leave the Chamber?

It is costing us £20 million a year in malicious damages, £13 million of this in Dublin alone. What effect will this legislation have on churches, schools, community centres and motor insurance? All of these will be affected. The average increase in insurance on schools will be about 40 per cent. The increase in car insurance across the board will, in my opinion, be about 10 per cent — and that estimate is on the low side. Insurance for fire and theft will probably cost even more. Why is malicious damage costing so much?

In many parts of the country because of the cut-backs in Garda pay the Garda Síochána are not in a position to man the areas as they had previously done. In my constituency of Laois-Offaly on many weekends the Garda stations in the smaller villages are closed. In some of our major towns the gardaí who used to man them have been drafted into duty in Portlaoise Prison. The Government and the Minister are trying to claim that there have been no cut-backs in Garda overtime and that all the areas are manned as before. I can speak for my own constituency and I say that is not so.

In my area a church in the course of erection was completely burned down. This will cost the community of Tullamore over £2 million. If this Bill had been in operation at the time of the burning the community and the parish would not have been able to claim for malicious damages. The position would have depended solely on the insurers and on the already hard-pressed community.

The proposal would have a very serious effect on schools, especially primary schools. The school represents both the community and authority and consequently it is the target of vandals. Generally speaking, these attacks happen during school holidays. Boards of management of schools have spent countless thousands of pounds on fencing and other security measures, but they are totally frustrated by recurring vandalism. Demands for extra policing and extra security have fallen on deaf ears, as the Government have restricted Garda availability and overtime, even in high crime areas. In Edenderry town from 2 a.m. to 9 p.m. there is no garda on duty. That is the system under which we are living. Being close to Dublin and the high crime rate areas, not a weekend goes by without four or five robberies taking place in that town. I cannot let this occasion pass without thanking the Garda Síochána for the work they have been doing on behalf of the community. Many of the vandals who have come there to commit serious crime and affect the industrial life of the area have been apprehended and brought before the courts.

I have very good knowledge of the insurance industry, having spent my younger days in it and I understand how it operates. Nobody can deny that at present the industry is going through a difficult period. Let me explain, to anybody who might not understand the term general branch business as distinct from life business, that general branch business is liability insurance which today is non-profit making. Company actuaries must be alert to the risks they undertake and let out to underwriters. In this field the Minister's proposals will have a severe effect. Regretfully I must say that a greater number of claims will be made and an increase in unemployment will result. This, in turn, will lead to more robberies. Many will not be able to get insurance cover for certain types of risk, some of which I have mentioned.

Car insurance is essential today and is compulsory under law. These proposals will increase most motor premiums by about 10 per cent on average. Extensive damage caused to stolen cars by thieves and joyriders is one of the principal features of crime, especially in our urban areas. Some say that if this Bill is enacted in its present form insurance premiums will go much higher than I have given as my opinion. If that happens this Bill will have a very serious effect on employment. Property in the hands of the community will prove too great a burden for them to continue to support. The management boards of schools and community halls and the trustees who look after such buildings and are responsible for fund raising will find that the resources available will be under extreme demand. Windows in schools are now a declined risk. I checked into that and found that many insurance companies are excluding them. In the greater urban areas the increases which I have stated could be as high on average as 45 per cent. Nobody has denied that. The insurance industry suggest that that may be the case.

Fire insurance is also very important. In some urban areas underwriters are not prepared to provide fire insurance because the risks of arson are considered to be too high. Therefore the suggestion that individuals or businesses cover these risks through increased insurance premiums is false and misleading. The Crime Prevention Council tell us that on average there are 1,300 arson attacks every year. Since the early sixties there has been a 13-fold increase in suspected arson attacks on industrial and commercial premises. Some people estimate that the number of fires for which claims are made which are suspected to be malicious has risen from 35 per cent in 1982 for claims involving £100,000 to 63 per cent in 1983. This rising trend in arson claims has ensured that underwriters have now declared certain parts of Dublin and the country as undesirable risks. I know insurance companies in many urban areas who will not insure contents. They will only insure buildings and that will depend on the location and the area. They will then decide on the premium.

What effect will this have on industry? People are hard pressed to keep their heads over water. I do not think anybody will deny that. There is no doubt that if this Bill goes through in the form in which it is proposed it will have an adverse effect on industry and employment. Premiums will rise. Some risks in industry are being reduced. More are being shared out among a number of underwriters. Very exorbitant premiums are being charged. I know a small company in my own constituency which employs 40 people. The premium for liability insurance is £35,000 a year. One is then expected to keep his head over water and to keep people employed. That was before there was any proposal before us in this regard.

We may be penny pinching in some areas and pounds foolish. Do not tell us that there is no decline in Garda work rates per hour. The Irish people are intelligent. Our young people are intelligent. They know what is going on. They are not going to be fobbed off with soft talk and twisting things around to make them look good. I and all reasonable people in this House must realise that that is the position. We will not cod the Irish people by telling them that there are no cut-backs and there are gardaí on the beat when it is not true. Nobody will get away with that. If we try to do that the credibility of the politicians will be open to question. We in this House will be blamed for putting it open to question. Some people try to doctor situations in order to make them look good and pretend that they have answers for everything. The people will judge that.

This will have a dramatic effect on household insurance. Household insurance is linked with mortgages. A person taking out a mortgage should insure his home at its present value. He should also have a mortage protection policy. All these are inter-linked. By doing that if anything happens the breadwinner at least the family will have the home.

The Deputy is moving away from the Bill.

I am dealing with the expenditure that will be involved under this heading. I am sorry if the Chair thinks I have gone off course. It is all inter-linked. Business premises and others will be and have been the victims. There will be an additional burden in taxation in the long run. It is interesting to note that the Dublin City Centre Business Association are alarmed at the very real prospect of being unable to obtain fire and malicious damage cover for all their members. They say a number of their members have recently gone out of business because of problems with insurance. Shopping centres, neighbourhood shops and pubs have been forced to close due to burglaries and vandalism. The critical situation will worsen if this Bill is approved in its present form.

While I have been critical one must also be positive. There is an alternative to the Government's approach, which is to provide alternative educational programmes for young dropouts, adequate policing, protection and security for schools, community centres, shopping centres, homes and businesses which are under risk. These are easily identified. The problems of crime, vandalism and malicious damage can be overcome but there is a price to pay and it must be paid. Negative policies such as the present one fall heaviest on the poor, the more congested and less privileged areas in our society. The Minister's proposals will deal a crushing blow to people in these areas. Members of the Oireachtas have a duty to speak out against these clearly oppressive and right wing proposals.

In many of these areas we must look at the security operation. I fully realise it is not always easy to look after every place. It is not possible for the Garda Síochána to cover all areas and responsibility must come down on the owners of projects in the areas I have mentioned who must provide a certain amount of security to ensure that their premises are properly locked and windows protected to the best of their ability. They must not all the time expect the Garda Síochána to protect haphazard arrangements. I have to be fair. There are some haphazard arrangements. I would like to say to those who make them to get their houses in order and not to blame us all the time.

This Bill will increase the cost of insurance premiums to cover the risk of damage to property by crime and vandalism. While there will be some relief for the Exchequer there will be no saving for the general public. Having a good knowledge of commercial business, I realise it will mean at the beginning of the year the commercial company having to make additional financial arrangements to meet liabilities and increasing costs. I may decide that I will not be able to maintain the employment level I have. I might have been in a position to take on an additional employee but owing to the cost which is now being placed on me I will have to consider it in a different context. The explanatory memorandum with the Bill does not explain why the right to compensation is retained in certain circumstances. The circumstances set out would appear to be risks against which the insurance industry would not usually offer cover. However, there is no evidence that the Government have conducted an analysis of the risks to property caused by criminal acts against which it is difficult or impossible to insure.

Has the Minister for Finance asked the insurance industry for a list of such risks or for an indication of the circumstances in which the cost of such cover is prohibitive? An analysis of these risks would give a rational basis for maintaining the right to compensation in certain circumstances. A person who cannot afford to insure his property against criminal acts will lose a right to compensation. This has serious implications for traders and other owners of property in those parts of the State affected by serious crime. In particular, traders will be obliged to pay prohibitive premiums or run the risk of losing their means of livelihood. It should be remembered that there is a clause inserted in insurance contracts today which means that if one does not insure one's property at market value one is not indemnified. Insurance companies introduced that clause in 1968, what is known as the under-insurance clause on property.

This may be a very interesting lecture on the insurance industry and its workings but I do not think it is all relevant to the Bill.

But it is relevant when it comes to the payment of premiums which revolves around this matter because the provisions of this Bill will occasion such increases. However, I do not want to differ from you, a Cheann Comhairle, so I shall not continue. It is agreed on all sides that the malicious injuries code has outlived its original purpose of levying on ratepayers of a given local authority compensation for malicious damage to property. It is regrettable that the Government did not avail of this opportunity to put into statutory form a scheme for the compensation of personal injuries occasioned by acts of criminal violence. Indeed, the Government have already displayed their lack of compassion for the victims of crime by the abolition of compensation for pain and suffering in such cases.

The provisions of this Bill will create an additional category of victims of crime who cannot obtain compensation. These will be persons who cannot afford to insure their property against malicious damage. Nobody, least of all the insurance companies, has denied that there will be substantial increases in premiums across the board affecting schools, churches, community centres, businesses of all descriptions. It is difficult enough for community centres at present to meet their overheads and many commitments. Many are now running weekly lotteries in an endeavour to pay the premiums being sought by insurance companies. The Minister of State present, representing a rural constituency like mine, will understand fully that that is occasioning an even greater demand on the public.

An improvement in present insurance arrangements can be brought about in a number of ways, first, by property owners ensuring that their premises are as secure as possible from potential robbery or other damage. I am aware also that many premises, schools and others, will not be given insurance cover unless first inspected by a fire inspector of an insurance company to ascertain what safety precautions have been taken. For example, one cannot have gammy locks on doors and expect to get away with it. Second, an educational programme should be devised in order to ensure that people render their premises safer, complying with the necessary statutory regulations.

I could not agree with this provision being removed because £30 million worth of malicious damage is caused in the Dublin area, which I suppose is understandable bearing in mind its population, the rest being spread throughout the remainder of the country. My fear would be that, with the substantial increases in premiums that will take place — with the risk element declining — companies giving good employment will be placed in jeopardy or perhaps even faced with closure. One must ask the question: what happens when a company closes? It would be my desire that everything possible be done to ensure that as many companies as possible remain stable and viable. But if this Bill is passed in its present form it will have an effect on the industrial life of the country. Then we must ask ourselves: will we be robbing Peter to pay Paul? Will the other State agencies be called to undertake some rescue work, when redundancies take place, with our hard-pressed Department of Social Welfare being asked to carry the can? If that is to be the case it is not good logic or something with which I could agree. Neither is it something the people would be prepared to accept. I must also point out that many people are not aware of the serious implications of this Bill. I warn every company owner, director, trader, shopkeeper, publican, and school management board that they will have to pay for this measure and will be bled again. The money will be coming from a pocket which has been fairly well rattled already.

I am worried about the effects this Bill may have on employment. Certainly there will be far-reaching effects. If the figure for malicious damage is £20 million — and it is rising every year — who will pick up the tab? The ordinary businessman, the taxpayer and the community in general must bear the cost. Community centres in some isolated areas may be in decline and may become uninsurable against heavy risk. A company can be closed down indirectly by prohibitive insurance premiums. Many companies are finding it very difficult to get insurance premiums. Many companies are finding it very difficult to get insurance against certain types of risk. Those who are getting insurance cover are paying substantially more for it now than they were paying some years ago. Some companies have been asked to pay 100 per cent or 150 per cent more than they paid last year. I got in touch with one company. They were nice to me but they told me to try to get someone else to take the risk. I pointed out that the client had been with them for many years and that they should not look for an easy way out by putting him out of business.

Nobody has denied that there will be substantial increases across the board. Churches, schools and community centres will be more expensive to insure. Similarly it will be difficult to get insurance cover for cars, lorries, tractors, combine harvesters, et cetera. It will certainly affect the agricultural community as well as industrial enterprises. Although admittedly £20 million per year in malicious damage is extremely high, it was borne across the board. Now the Government are shirking that responsibility and putting it on small companies and those who are responsible for the concerns I have mentioned. Above all it will affect household insurance. In many urban and county areas comprehensive risk insurance is no longer available. We seem to be on course for throwing all the burden to business people and ordinary workers and telling them to do their best. It is hard luck if they have to close down.

We have pointed out some of the things that should be done. Many of the views I have mentioned are held by other people. The Garda Review issued today contains a statement from the Garda Representative Body in the midlands which points out the serious effect of cutbacks on policing work. Many areas in the midlands do not have any garda on duty. Nobody has denied this. The Minister can talk plausibly but people in the midlands do not believe him. I hope serious consideration will be given on Committee Stage to the amendments we will put down in the interests of the people, the workers and managers who are trying to keep the wheels of industry moving. They deserve a better deal. They already bear a heavy burden and it should not be increased. We are told by Government that things are improving. I do not see it, nor do thousands of others. There has been an increase in the number of bankruptcies and receiverships since the beginning of the year. This Bill will accelerate that trend. I am asking the Government to think of the overall effects on our economy before they go any further. We will have a lot more to say about the Bill on Committee Stage which I presume will not be for some time. I hope that during the summer recess a breath of fresh air, which is badly needed in St. Stephen's Green, blows through the House and will result in the provisions being altered.

Like my colleagues I am opposed to the Bill. Malicious injury compensation awards in future will be confined to damage caused during riots or by unlawful organisations but there is a glaring omission in regard to local authority property, irrespective of how the damage is caused. If it is caused by an unlawful organisation or during a riot the local authority will not be able to claim the compensation they are entitled to. There is at least one serious case that needs to be dealt with. During the "H Block" riots in 1981 Monaghan courthouse was seriously damaged and the repair bill, which had to be paid by the county council, amounted to £1½ million. The Government, and in particular the Minister for Justice, are aware of that case and I thought that when this opportunity was presented to them they would have rectified this anomaly in the 1981 Act.

Local authorities, through no fault of their own, will be burdened with the heavy expense of malicious damage. The legislation discriminates against them. Monaghan courthouse is situated in the centre of Monaghan town which is under the control of Monaghan Urban District Council. Had the urban council been the owners of the courthouse there would not have been any problem. The UDC could have taken the claim against the county council and the council could have been recouped by the Central Fund to the extent of anything in excess of 20p in the £. Under the Bill before us the UDC will be recouped in full.

I regret that the Government did not avail of this opportunity to correct that anomaly. It is a pity that a Government Minister is not present to convey this point to the Cabinet. I appreciate that Minister of State Donnellan, who is present, is aware of the implications for any local authority. As a member of Galway County Council I am sure he realises that local authorities in future will have to carry a heavy burden if their property is damaged maliciously.

According to section 6 the Minister for the Environment will refund to the local authority the full amount of any compensation awarded under the new provisions together with any legal costs incurred by the authority in respect of compensation. Two questions arise out of that provision. Why is it not possible to ensure that local authorities are paid their just compensation in the event of their own property being damaged maliciously? Why is the charge, following such damage, not awarded against the central authority rather than against the local authority? Why is the responsibility imposed on the local authority when the local authority will not be responsible for paying the damages? That money will be paid by the central authority through the local authority.

I must point out that the Department of Justice made a contribution towards the cost of the repair of the Monaghan courthouse but had the council offices been damaged the local authority would have had to carry the huge burden alone. If a similar incident occurred in another county and £2 million had to be found to repair council property the consequences for that county would be very serious. All local authorities are short of funds and I do not think they will be able to raise the necessary funds. Will a local authority be permitted to use money allocated for housing or roads? Had there been a Minister for a Border constituency in the Cabinet the anomaly that exists would have been corrected before the Bill was circulated. However, the Government have an opportunity between now and Committee Stage to ensure that there will not be discrimination against local authorities in this fashion.

The Bill will create serious problems for many people. Insurance premiums will rise considerably because insurance companies will be asked to carry the extra cover for damage arising out of malicious injury claims. The time was opportune for the Government to bring in legislation to regularise motor insurance. It is my belief that the legislation will aggravate the problems in regard to motor insurance. One of the serious side effects of the annual increase in the cost of motor insurance is that some people do not take out insurance cover. That will have serious consequences for those who pay their premiums and those who are unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident.

There is a limited form of insurance for personal injuries but not, for instance, for damage to a car. I met a person last night who bought a car recently and owed £4,000 to a HP company. Somebody drove into it and wrecked it and it went to the scrapyard — fortunately, the person was not injured but the car was a total write-off. Because the other motorist was not insured that man will have to pay back the £4,000, although he has not a car to drive. There is something seriously wrong in that.

One of the effects of the increasing insurance premiums — they have increased at an astronomical rate in recent years — is that more and more people are not insuring their cars and they are getting away with it. This legislation should not have been brought before us without a thorough study of that situation. This Bill will have serious consequences for young people which have not been highlighted sufficiently here. Many young people who live long distances from their work have to use cars. Indeed, they are fortunate enough these days to have work, without paying premiums as high as £1,000, £1,200 and even £1,400 to insure their cars. This is a serious problem for young people because the effect of the Bill will be to increase premiums still further. I do not know how big the increases will be and I do not know if the Minister discussed the effects of the Bill on premiums with the insurance companies. All this should have been examined before the Bill was even circulated.

Householders will have their insurance cover increased as a result of this legislation. Schools, community centres and Church authorities have had their premiums increased already. Primary schools always have been vulnerable to vandalism and malicious damage. Will the management boards of these schools be responsible for the payment of increased premiums, will the Department of Education accept responsibility or contribute, or will the responsibility be transferred from Department to Department? School management boards are already hard pressed for ordinary maintenance of schools. In respect of primary schools in Dublin, it is estimated that premiums will be increased by 40 per cent and that insurance cover for post-primary schools will be increased by 30 per cent. Of course, this will apply more to poorer areas of the inner cities. If school management boards are to be obliged to insure against vandalism the suffering will be greatest in the poorer areas. Central Dublin is particularly vulnerable and has been for years.

A week ago the Minister for the Environment announced that he would spend £10 million to improve Dublin city centre, yet today we are passing legislation which will drive people out of it because they will not be able to stay there. Business people cannot obtain insurance cover at present, but when this Bill becomes the law of the land they will be asked to carry the extra cost of criminal damage and malicious injuries. Of course, the obvious answer is to cut down the crime level. This will take a certain amount of time and education and support for people involved in crime. There have been cut-backs on expenditure on the Garda and they have got to have an effect. The Government have a responsibility to the victims of crime, and it is unfortunate that the cost of malicious injuries has more than trebled, from £5.6 million to £18.7 million in recent years. Therefore, the amount will be much greater after this Bill becomes law.

Fire insurance will be increased and this will cause grave hardship. Small industries will suffer in this respect and indeed larger industries may find it difficult to continue in this time of recession. As a result of this Bill there will be major increases in fire insurance for such businesses. When there is arson by vandals businesses employing 30 or 40 people could be burned, throwing those people out of work without any hope of getting their jobs back because the owners would not have the money to put the staff together again.

The Government should have looked at all those things, those implications, before introducing the Bill. I wonder if the Government had any consultations whatever with the insurance companies. Will the Government in future help firms, schools, community centres, who may not be able to get insurance cover? What will happen to people who are told by their insurance company that because they live in an area of high risk, where there has been much vandalism and where the record is bad, they are not prepared to insure them? Will people be driven from the centre of the city at a time when the Government have a commitment to improve it? If small businesses are unfortunate enough to be the target of vandals, will they be destroyed and not receive compensation from anyone? What plans have the Government made to deal with such matters? What consultations have they had with the insurance companies to ascertain that cover will be available for everyone? Are the Government going to make any effort to ensure that those struggling to keep their businesses in operation will be able to pay the increased premiums? These are serious questions at a time when crime and vandalism are rampant, at a time of recession when everyone, whether in business or not, is struggling to make ends meet.

The answer lies in reducing the crime rate. For example, the abuse of drugs is a major contributory factor to crime, particularly in this city. While I appreciate that the Government amended the Misuse of Drugs Act, are they satisfied enough has been done? Heroin is responsible for some of the most violent crimes committed in cities throughout the world. It costs up to £200 per day to provide an addict with heroin and that person will often commit the most heinous of crimes to obtain that money. There is no reason why heroin should find its way into this country. It cannot be produced here; it has to be imported. What efforts are we making at the docks to keep it out? Why did we not involve customs and excise officers to a greater extent? Why have we not given them special training to deal with that problem?

There are many other areas where Government action could be taken to cut down the level of crime. Unrest caused by massive unemployment leads to vandalism. It is important that people should have the opportunity to indulge in creative activity. People should have the opportunity to work and the Government have a prime responsibility to create the proper economic environment in which industry can flourish, thus providing work for the people. The Government should seriously consider their economic policies. In the past month they have spent their time campaigning for people to vote in favour of divorce. If they put the same energy into their economic policies, to create a climate in which industry would thrive and where jobs would be available for our people, that would help to cut down the level of vandalism. Equally, they should provide more opportunities for leisure and sport, particularly for young people. This time last year we were told a National Lottery Bill would be introduced here to provide funds for proper leisure facilities. However, when the Bill was circulated we found that the objective was to provide funds for the central Exchequer. This Bill is to give £20 million to the Exchequer, the amount the Government will save as a result of not paying the victims of vandalism and crime.

There is also the question of the deployment of the Garda Síochána in combating crime. A large number of gardaí and the Army guard the Border. I hope they are not guarding it just to please the British Government. That would be entirely unacceptable. The Government must look at the balance between the number of gardaí and the Army personnel along the Border and the problems in areas far removed from the Border where there appears to be a totally insufficient number of Garda Síochána, for example, on the streets of Dublin. I ask the Government to consider this aspect.

The question of overtime for the gardaí has been raised. About four or five weeks ago there was a headline in The Irish Press to the effect that gardaí were to be withdrawn from the Border. The following day there was a headline in the same paper saying that statement was denied by the Government. Nevertheless, the gardaí on temporary duty on the Border had given up their accommodation and were on their way home — some were actually at home — when they were called back. There seems to be a problem in relation to the deployment of the gardaí in combating crime, particularly with regard to malicious injury cases.

These are all areas where the Government could have acted to cut down the amount of damages the State would have to pay. However, pending a better economic climate, they should not have introduced this Bill. It will create unnecessary hardship for many people, particularly for the motorist who is already hard-pressed enough, and it will lead to the serious problems I have mentioned, namely, where people will have no insurance cover. It will create serious problems for householders, for boards of management of schools, for those responsible for churches and for owners of small businesses.

The Bill was not well thought out and its timing is wrong. I ask the Government to consider the consequences, particularly with regard to the increase in insurance premiums, the consequences for those who are unable to obtain insurance and those who cannot afford the increased premiums. I come back to the point I started with, namely, the glaring omission in the Bill of a provision for local authorities. If this legislation is passed they will find, as they did after the 1981 Act, that they will have to carry the responsibility and they will be discriminated against as compared with anyone else where damage is caused by riot or by an unlawful organisation.

Over the last number of years we have heard Government spokesmen proclaiming that one of their priorities is the necessity to create a suitable environment for business. The extent of this commitment is evident from the legislation before us. This Bill will worsen the environment for business. This is more discriminatory legislation against the business community and will contribute to the rising toll of unemployment.

The business community in cities and towns are already finding it difficult to get insurance cover and this legislation will make this even more difficult, and in many cases impossible. It will be the straw that broke the camel's back. Many business men who were lucky enough to get insurance — and I speak from experience — find that this legislation has been anticipated by the insurance companies. Most insurance policies to cover small businesses say that the insurance cover will be valid until this legislation is passed. That begs the question of how much consulation there was between the Government and the insurance companies and why the insurance companies saw fit to introduce that codicil in the policies which have been issued.

How can the Government justify brining legislation before the House which will worsen the depression facing the business community and the country as a whole? Contrary to stated Government policy this Bill, like many other Bills, reinforces the general view that the Government have lost their way, that they are going around in circles like a dog chasing his tail, and that they are no wiser now than when they set out on their journey. One finds it puzzling that on the one hand the Minister for the Environment should make much ado about giving £10 million to O'Connell Street, money saved from the rates support grant which he is giving back five months later with a great trumpet of publicity, while on the other hand introducing legislation which will affect the city centre, especially the Dublin city centre. This legislation will affect all town and city centres. If this legislation is passed — and unless the Government change their minds drastically it will pass — it will worsen the problems in all city centres.

It is sad that this legislation was not introduced to improve the environment for business but simply to save the Government a few pounds. This legislation was introduced to further advance the myth that this Government care about handling finances, and that they are interested in financial rectitude and management. The reality is that any savings the Government might make will be spent on unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit for people who, as a result of this legislation, will find themselves out of work.

Experience shows that the insurance companies are being more selective in the type of business they are taking and where the business are located. Many Deputies have had representations about the difficulties experienced by small businesses in obtaining insurance. With that in mind I question the Government's action in bringing in this legislation. I honestly believe they have not thought out fully the implications of this Bill. To save a few pounds they have thrown people like school managers, small factory owners, and small businesses, on the mercy of the insurance companies. Will the Government help fund the premiums which the insurance companies will ask school management baords to pay, particularly many national schools close to the city centre where the population has moved out and the schools are much bigger than are needed? What would happen if the management board were unable to pay the premium and no insurance were taken out on a school which was destroyed or badly damaged maliciously? The reality is that the management board will have no money and will have to come back to the Government. This is another example of how the Government will save a few pounds under this legislation which will have to be spent by them in other ways. That is why I believe the Government have not thought through fully the implications of this legislation. I do not know what agreement the Government and the insurance companies have reached, but I cannot see any logic in the Government introducing this legislation at this time.

I would like to mention something which the Government do not like us to talk about because of the way they have handled it, and that is the construction industry. I am speaking now in particular of County Mayo which I know. Many small contractors in County Mayo are unable to pay the premiums they have been asked for employers' liability and public liability. I know a number of very small contractors who had tendered for and got houses from Mayo County Council but had to give them up because of a lack of employers' liability and public liability. A number of these people were asked to pay three times last year's premium, and that was before this Bill was introduced. Many people in Mayo will be out of work as a result of this legislation. A number of larger contractors will be the only people who will be able to tender for houses, isolated cottages or small schemes from Mayo County Council because of the increased insurance premiums. This legislation can only worsen that situation.

In other times there might be some justification for this legislation but the Government have picked an extraordinarily bad time to introduce it, a time when crime is rife and on the increase particularly in city areas, when vandalism is on the increase, when there is a general disregard for law and order. In spite of all this, very many areas all throughout the country are experiencing cutbacks in Garda activity. When one puts these facts together one can only ask what has happened to the Government when they introduce this legislation at this time.

VECs will be extremely badly hit by this legislation. In my town we have had a series of attacks and vandalism on the local vocational school. There are four or five malicious injury claims in already. Once this legislation is passed Mayo VEC will find it extremely difficult, in view of the history of attacks in certain areas, to get insurance cover and I or somebody else will be coming back to the Minister for Education seeking money — as we are doing already and I might add that money has been refused — to do major repairs to that school arising out of malicious injury claims while we are awaiting the decisions of various court cases.

I have had the sad experience of this problem of my car being stolen, but fortunately I was covered by insurance. I came out of the flat I reside in in Dublin some time ago to discover that the car I had parked carefully the night before was no longer there and I have not seen sight nor sign of it since then. I was lucky enough because I had comprehensive cover. If I had not I wonder what the situation would have been, particularly when that type of crime is on the increase, despite what may or may not be indicated by statistics. I went to the Garda station at 9.10 a.m. and I was the fourth person reporting a car stolen to that station. Therefore, I wonder what the situation is in relation to problems like this.

As I said, I do not intend to keep the House long. I would like to add my voice again to the voices of those who would question the justification for this legislation. I ask the Minister of State to urge the Government to hasten slowly here because of the implications for business particularly, but not only, in city centres because vandalism is now not confined — whatever the Minister of State may think — to the city of Dublin. It is spread all through the country, and the Government are aiding this by their decision to cut back on Garda overtime by their demand that gardaí account for every moment of their time despite the fact that a garda does not pick the time of the crime and has not the opportunity of just stopping at 5 p.m. The criminal will not stop. We have the ludicrous situation of a young man who apprehended a criminal after a young woman made a complaint being criticised next morning for working on after the time he was supposed to be on duty. That can be proved. If the Minister of State would like the details I will give them to him.

This legislation is not timely. Its implications have been badly thought out. The Government for some reason best known to themselves have introduced legislation that will in the long run affect employment, particularly in city centres, will put many small businesses out of business, and in particular will mean that many small factories will have to close. I am speaking to you now, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle as a practising TD who is meeting these things. You will have met them as I have. You will have met people who have difficulty with their insurance company. You will have met small shopkeepers as I have met them, and you will have seen insurance policies with mention of this Bill in them without any suggestion of what the premium will be once this legislation is passed.

Again, I urge the Government to proceed very slowly and after Second Stage to go back to the drawing board, think of the consequences to business if this legislation is passed and to rethink before they put on the Statute Book legislation which will only add more and more unemployment, will make life much more difficult for very many small businesses and will put very many family businesses out of business.

Mr. Cowen:

I rise to add my reservations about the Bill to those of other speakers on this side of the House and as a member of the legal profesion who is involved in processing malicious injury applications. A new Act was brought in by the Government not so long ago, I think in 1981. This proposal is, unfortuantely, another instance of short term planning such as we have seen from this Government. This measure is synonymous with crisis management, born of frustration and really is senseless in that it will impose a further burden on sections of the community who have already taken enough from this Government in many areas of activity. I would have thought when I spoke here last week on the Juries Bill, when I was asked to accept the argument of the Minister for Justice for the abolition of juries for the purpose of reducing the cost of insurance and of the level of compensation awarded in the High Court, that one would not expect to see a Bill brought into the House simultaneously which has the very opposite effect of increasing insurance premiums and in many instances rendering more people unable to insure their cars, vehicles, houses and schools. In relation to cars, for example, what savings one might think one was making would involve one in increased claims with the Motor Insurers' Bureau later.

In opposing the motion I am trying to discern some kind of logic behind the workings of a Government that do not seem to know where they are going in relation to many issues. Unfortunately, they have continuously seriously miscalculated public opinion and are out of touch with the priorities of ordinary people trying to make a living or to exist on social welfare payments. This from a Government supposedly talented, consisting of bright sparks who stand for fair play. However, it is very difficult to see where they are trying to lead us. This is a botched effort to deflect us from the real issues and that has been their hallmark for some considerable time. This Bill has been introduced because malicious injury claims have trebled under this Government, from £5.6 million to £18.7 million. The reason for this is that far more malicious attacks have taken place under the Government because there is far more crime and lawlessness.

The Government are not attacking the causes of crime generally but this small aspect of it would merely involve having a few more gardaí on the streets and increasing the neighbourhood watch scheme and patrols. One would have thought that the community would be involved to a greater extent in trying to prevent malicious injuries. We should also try to monitor crime to a greater extent and to apprehend the perpetrators. Malicious injuries claims apply only to damage done by person or persons unknown. Obviously many unknown persons are walking around because these claims are increasing. If my home or car were damaged and I found out who did it I could not make a claim. You must be able to prove that you do not know who did the damage. There are far too many undetected crimes in relation to burning schools, damaging cars and breaking windows. That raises the question of law enforcement and the ability of the Government to ensure that we have a peaceful existence.

This Bill has been introduced because the Government are not prepared to commit the funds where they are required. The Garda have explained that they cannot do their job properly because of lack of overtime. Crime has unquestionably increased, there is less detection and more malicious injuries so a Bill is introduced to do away with claims of this nature. Individual property is not being protected although it is a constitutional right. Everybody, thankfully, has property of some description and is entitled to protection. One would expect the fundamental role of Government to encompass this but all they can do is to introduce this Bill. It is important for people in the Dáil and elsewhere to explain the reasons to the public for the abolition of malicious injuries claims. They should tell them that the Government are not prepared to pay the cost of prevention of the incidence of malicious injuries. That, in a nutshell, is the raison d'etre of this legislation.

The cause of greatest concern in relation to the Bill is that schools and public buildings will no longer be able to claim for malicious injuries from local authorities. I know that local authorities provide only 20p in the £ and that the first £100 is not refundable in order to eliminate small claims, with which I agree, but people require a Government to step in when buildings have been maliciously damaged by a person or persons unknown. The alternative now proposed by the Government is that boards of management should go to an insurance company and pay a higher premium than heretofore. How will they do that when they cannot in many instances pay existing levels of insurance? A week ago we were asked to abolish juries in civil cases for the purpose of reducing insurance premiums and now we are asked to support a measure which will increase them. These are two contradictory Bills. Was this is mental abberation? It is another example of the inconsistency of the Government who do not seem to have any coherent plan or policy. They do not seem to know that Departments are bringing Bills forward without reference to their effect on other Departments or how they might affect a Government argument in relation to another Bill. Are mini-republics running the country? Perhaps that overstates the case but taxpayers should ask questions when they see obvious inconsistencies on the part of Government.

The Minister claimed that the level of crime has been reduced and that the argument put forward by Fianna Fáil is spurious. The increase in malicious injuries from £5.6 million to £18.7 million under this Government, the Government of law and order, the party of law and order, suggests that crime is increasing certainly in relation to malicious injuries. It has increased immeasurably just in relation to malicious injuries, and if it has increased in relation to malicious injuries, would it be safe to suggest that it has increased in other areas of detected crime, or are we being asked to say that whilst it has increased in the area of malicious injuries, it has decreased to such an extent elsewhere as to offset the increase in malicious injuries? Malicious injury is really only a very small area of the activities of law enforcement officers. We are dealing with serious crime in this city and this country. Major crimes are becoming more prevalent, with the recent kidnapping case, armed robberies and so on. We are all aware of it and there is no need to go through it line by line. If we read the newspapers we can detect a greater reportage of crime — and the journalists are serious journalists and are not thinking it up in their heads.

There has been an increase in crime. How does the Minister refute that argument? By referring to the statistics on the detection of crime. If one goes to another book by a man called Professor Rothman of the ESRI one finds that, when he is asked to make a study of crime and the level of detection of crime and the incidence of crime, his first concrete observation is that the statistics he has are incomplete and it is difficult to come to any final conclusions on crime although the Garda yearly reports have become more sophisticated and more detailed in the various categories. Here is a professional statistician who cannot come to any clear conclusions. His main recommendation is that we should kindly collate the information in such a way that he can make something out of it. That is what he is saying in ordinary language. When a Minister makes a major assertion which goes against the layman's view of Ireland today in relation to the level of crime, when a Minister of a Government who are supposed to be protecting the citizen and his property says that the level of crime is less than it was three years ago, what citizen in this city could agree with him?

I am not taking away from the intelligence of any Minister. Far be it from me to do that. But I would say he is relying on information which is not reliable. He is coming to a conclusion on the basis of assumptions which cannot be made on the information available. A professional man in this area has stated quite clearly that he cannot make anything of the information. I quoted that report a few weeks ago on a Private Members' motion on crime and I did not hear it refuted by any Member of the Government afterwards and they had many opportunities to do so because it is there in black and white. Therefore, the assertion that crime is reducing is refuted professionally and by the person who matters, the private citizen who, as Deputy Calleary said just before me, is staying somewhere overnight and has his car stolen, and on reporting it to the Garda station finds that he is the fourth person reporting a stolen car at the same Garda station. So that argument falls by the wayside.

How then do the Government come to the conclusion that this is good legislation? By offering a sop to local authorities and saying that they need not pay 20p in the £ for malicious injuries anymore. But by doing that they are also doing away with the 80p per £ commitment they were paying and handing it over to the insurance companies who can take it from Joe Soap down the road, lash it on to the private individual again because he is well able to pay it. It does not matter that his rate of personal taxation has increased under this Government; it does not matter that his standard of living has fallen under this Government; it does not matter that more of his ilk are out of work under this Government. He has money and he will pay it. The Government do not look at the real information in this report, the numbers of uninsured drivers, the numbers of business people who cannot take out employers' liability insurance, the numbers of people who cannot get public liability insurance.

One begins to wonder who is codding whom. This is a local saying in the part of the country that I come from; it is said with a broad accent and it is very funny when one hears it —"who is codding who?" This Government are not fooling the ordinary guy in the street because he cannot pay. When he is asked to take this extra burden he will not pay it either. More who can pay will not pay because they will not be allowed to pay 90 per cent of their car insurance and the remaining 10 per cent the following week when they have it. He might just about have the premium this year but if it increases next year he will not be able to pay it at all. Fifty per cent of the increase from £5.6 million to £8.7 million in malicious injuries under this Government is made up of malicious damage to motor vehicles. If this is to be passed on to the private insurance industry, what we are really talking about is transferring another £10 million to the motorist, assuming that everyone sticks to this new law which puts the ordinary motorist in a position where he cannot pay his insurance, which means more will break the law. We are bringing in legislation to ensure that more people will break the law. The Government seem to think this is very good legislation, an excellent idea. Because of the economic climate that we have built up around us in the past three years, many are breaking the law as it is. It seems that the Government think it is no harm to add to that minority and make it something sizeable. We seem to be very interested in minorities in this Parliament in recent times.

In relation to car insurance the Government seem to be saying that motorists will tolerate anything and that anyone who is paying £600 a year for car insurance will be foolish enough to pay £650. That is the logic we are dealing with here. We are only the Opposition; we are not the Government of talents; we have not the bright backbenchers; we are just here trying to represent Joe Soap. The point is that Joe Soap cannot take it; he has not got the money. If he has not got it, he will not take much notice of this legislation. He will do as a man I know at home does. This man is on an invalidity pension. He got a disabled person's grant and built a little prefabricated building for himself. He was waiting a long time to build it and was living in a caravan for ten years. He went off to see his brother in Dublin for the week-end. He came back——

The Deputy is beginning to wander.

Mr. Cowen:

I think we are entitled to wander to Dublin now and again. I come up here three days a week. But this is just an incident about Joe Soap, a very important individual. It is in relation to malicious injuries. He came home and all his windows were broken by a person or persons unknown. That is malicious injuries, is it not? The Minister is longer in the game than I am.

As a solicitor talking to a solicitor, the Deputy should know about malicious injuries claims.

Mr. Cowen:

We in our profession always bow to senior colleagues. We respect our elders. Under the present legislation, with £250 damage done to the windows, that man loses the first £100 but is repaid £150. Under the new proposals he would receive nothing. We cannot expect people on invalidity pension to insure the windows of their prefabs. One might expect them to insure a county council house, but not a prefab. No one insures prefabs. The Electricity Supply Board will not put electricity into such buildings. Under this legislation that man would have no remedy. He has an allowance of only £40 a week. He might be asked to put galvanized sheeting into the prefab, but he would be better off in a caravan. That is a typical example from County, Offaly. I am trying to show the irrelevance of these proposals and to bring logic into the debate. I am trying to find the reason for the bringing in of this legislation. Even in their wildest dreams the Government would not wish galvanized sheeting to be put into prefabs but what will happen in such a case? Luckily the vandals came in time and the man had submitted his claim within the 14 days, so he will get his £150, but the next man will be in trouble.

When it comes down to brass tacks, why not leave the malicious injuries scheme as it is? It is costing £18.7 million — an extra £13 million during the years of fiscal rectitude, under the law and order Government, a responsible Government which would ensure that the individual is protected at all times, that a man's house is his castle, that in no circumstances will lawlessness be rampant in our society. However, we cannot protect even the man in the prefab.

Mr. Cowen:

That is not in Dublin South.

That is in poor Offaly.

Mr. Cowen:

Poor Offaly. We are not in the disadvantaged scheme, like Deputy Taylor's constituency, even though we are more entitled to it.

Mr. Cowen:

Under the review instigated by my late father — and thankfully my constituents remember that, for which I am grateful——

The Deputy's father was a decent man and he had a powerful wife.

Mr. Cowen:

I am thankful that I have a colleague in my constituency who is unlike Deputy Connaughton. I have another colleague besides him and we have the closest relationship in this House, even on a Malicious Injuries Bill.

That could bean accusing statement. The Deputy should be very careful.

Order, please.

Mr. Cowen:

The reason that we are so close is that we live so far apart but that is beside the point. This is a serious matter, one which receives top priority from the Government. There are 250,000 people unemployed and there is a world recession but we cannot do anything about that. We cannot do anything about the increase in taxation. We must borrow to keep the show on the road. When it comes to the Malicious Injuries Bill however, Fine Gael and Labour are united. They will push this legislation through even at 11 p.m.

It is vital in this day and age that people look after their own property. They stayed up all last night but we shall not have as good a boxing match every night to keep us awake and to keep away the vandals. The Government are not prepared to put law enforcement officers on the streets to protect the people. That is the plain and simple fact. If we had those officers on the street, the people going around wrecking places would be caught. Then we could say that the detection rate was up. What could have been done there would have been to employ the extra people that were to be put into the Central Statistics Office. That is another new idea of Government, which does great injustice to the young people who were interviewed for the junior executive posts and who have now been told that they are no longer involved.

That is irrelevant. The Deputy will have to come back to the Bill.

Mr. Cowen:

This concerns the Central Statistics Office, a Cheann Comhairle. Getting proper statistics on crime is very important. The Government are prepared to push through this Malicious Injuries Bill, not for the purpose of looking after the individual, but to increase the burden on motorists by the princely sum of £10 million.

The Deputy made enough gain out of the malicious injuries scheme, as many of his colleagues did.

Order, please.

Mr. Cowen:

A charge has been made which I must refute.

That charge should be withdrawn. It is not in order to make a charge against another Deputy in his profession or business.

Mr. Cowen:

In my professional capacity.

Deputy Taylor-Quinn is being very helpful, a Cheann Comhairle. We are being briefed on the——

Deputy Taylor-Quinn should withdraw the remark.

I am not making a charge against the Deputy. I am making a statement in general.

I have asked the Deputy to withdraw the remark.

I withdraw it, a Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. Cowen:

I am most obliged to the Deputy. I can assure her that I took no offence. I am a man of the world. The Deputy is a little behind the times with regard to malicious injuries claims, because the level of fees is much lower under the most recent Act dealing with malicious injuries than it was heretofore and properly so. I would regard what we in the profession now receive as proper remuneration in processing private citizens' claims, to ensure that the Government meet their responsibilities in the malicious injuries area. We ensure payment to people where damage has been done mala fides by the culprit. The cities will be much more seriously affected than the country. There are many areas of our cities where lawlessness is present to a much greater degree than in the quaint little town in the midlands from which I come, although we have some hard men there as well.

There will be a great responsibility on the Government, when bringing in this legislation, to listen to the representations which have been made by the Dublin City Centre Businesses Association in this matter. That association are trying to ensure that Minister Boland's greatest plans announced last week of making O'Connell Street one of the main shopping thoroughfares in Europe succeed. Those people should be listened to. They say that it will be very difficult to conduct certain classes of insurance as a result of the introduction of this Bill. According to the Minister for the Environment we will invest £10 million in this plan for O'Connell Street, which will come from a reduction in the rates of court awards. In the end, the sums add up. It is just that the money goes to different places and it is difficult to trace it. That is the problem with this Government. There are new headings of expenditure every day of the week.

The Deputy will please get back to the Bill.

Mr. Cowen:

I have not mentioned the problems concerning industrial and commercial premises. Since the sixties arson attacks, I understand, have increased thirteenfold on such premises. We are aware of the serious level of the premiums which these people are being asked to pay to try to keep others in employment.

That is another major reservation that Government should have about this Bill. They should consider that even though they are doing their best in trying to create employment in whatever sphere of activity they operate, there are people in the open market sector subject to the competitive constraints of this economy who are trying to show and illustrate their enterprise and their entrepreneurship. They are trying to win orders for the economy on the export market. Many of them in rural constituencies are involved in skills, in particular engineering. They are having very serious difficulties at present.

We are waiting patiently to see how this is related to the Bill.

Mr. Cowen:

How this is related to the Bill is that the Bill is increasing premiums. A person finds it difficult to get employer's liability insurance if his factory or premises is situated in a crimeridden area where there are malicious attacks on property daily and nightly. We are thankful that it does not happen very much in your constituency, a Cheann Comhairle, or in my constituency. There are areas where it is very serious. People are attacking business premises. Businessmen are in the position where if the people who commit the crime are not detected and the crime is proven to be malicious they will be compensated. If the person is not in a position to pay his premiums when that loading is not there how will he be in a position to pay them in the future? That will have an effect on employment because people will be let go in order to reduce the loadings on employers liability and public liability. It is a fact of life. We are aware of that from the many representations which we receive as Members of Dáil Éireann.

Those premiums have been increasing alarmingly in recent years because there are greater incidents of crime in these areas. We have to take on board whether or not a man who runs a business from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. is being asked to sleep on the premises or to be there 24 hours a day in order to police it when there are law enforcement officers for that purpose. Cognisance should be taken of that. It is an important aspect which has been highlighted during this debate and will be continually highlighted on this side of the House. We respect the contribution that these people have made and will continue to make. In a very short time they will make a greater contribution when they are given the opportunity in a better climate and under a different Government to show that entrepreneurship and to create employment.

The Deputy may refer to that but he cannot engage in an economic debate. He can make the point by way of a generous passing reference which he has much more than done but he cannot get into an economic debate.

Mr. Cowen:

I am sure many urban Deputies have mentioned during this debate that the absence of protection for what one might call anonymous crime will mean that we could be creating a breeding ground for protection rackets in this city and in other cities. If the gardaí under the present policy will not be remunerated or given the equipment and the political direction to get out and about in sufficient numbers to protect private property in the city that is what will happen. Employers, as a result of the damage that might ensue because of the absence of the gardaí, will be subject to increased insurance premiums. What are they to do? People will come to them and say: if you give me money your building will not go on fire tonight. What is to stop that happening? We have seen and we know from the Garda and from others that there is a great problem of professional crime gangs in this city and elsewhere who make it their business to exploit these opportunities. They can see far ahead. We are here as law abiding citizens wondering what difficulties there might be. There are people who would look at it in a different way to see what opportunities there are for people who want to cash in on this exposure. The business community will be exposed to these influences.

The Government would have us believe that we are in some way eliminating a legal anachronism from, I think, 1861 — I stand to be corrected — whereby the then ruling authorities imposed this on local tenants to keep them at bay and to deter them from causing any damage to the exalted buildings which they occupied. They want us to believe that this is the whole idea of this legislation. The Minister said that it is a legal anachronism. It is not a legal anachronism that malicious injury claims have increased threefold under this Government.

That is repetition. We have heard that before.

Mr. Cowen:

It is a good factual point. They have increased not because there are charitable organisations going around doing damage for the sake of it but because there are more criminals and more wayward young people with nothing to do. If the amount of malicious injury claims was still at £5.6 million we would not have a Malicious Injuries Bill. The reason we have a Malicious Injuries Bill is that the Government are not prepared to pay £18.7 million for malicious injuries. They did it at one time but they will not do it any more. The reason they will not pay it is that they have not the money. The people should realise that. The Government are not prepared to pay for crime prevention. That is the nub of the issue. That is why we are diccussing this Bill and why we oppose it so strenuously.

The Deputy made that point many times since I came into the House.

Mr. Cowen:

It is a point worth making.

Repetition is not permitted.

Mr. Cowen:

Having made that point 15 times I would hope it might get through. I often found when doing my tables it was through repetition I learned. The Government are often very good listeners despite the need for a hearing aid in instances. They certainly sit up attentively. When making that point it is important for it to get through. That is the nub of our opposition to this Bill. I ask the Government to take serious cognisance of what has been said right throughout this debate. Hopefully, this Bill will be buried on Second Stage or alternatively substantially amended so that a real reason for bringing it forward might be gleaned not only by the Opposition but by many Government Deputies who will not even know what they are voting on tonight.

I would like to thank the Deputies for their contributions on Second Stage. As mentioned in the Minister's introductory statement this measure is one of a number decided on by the Government for the purpose of reducing current public expenditure. The savings at current costs will be about £20 million annually including savings of about £4 million to local authorities. The Government could not support any amendments which would have the effect of reducing the size of those savings. Great play was made by the Opposition with the fact that more than half of the compensation paid out under the malicious injuries scheme relates to the Dublin area and a high proportion to Cork and Limerick. They then argued that its abolition will have a bad effect on——

Does the Minister of State have a concluding speech to circulate?

I assume the Minister of State is reading from notes.

No, I have notes.

Does the Minister for Justice not think it worthwhile to reply to this debate?

That does not arise.

It seems to be becoming a habit of the Minister for Justice not to reply to a debate which he has initiated.

Dr. Woods knows perfectly well that that does not arise. The Minister of State without interruption.

Great play was made by the Opposition with the fact that more than half of the compensation paid out under the malicious injuries scheme relates to the Dublin area and a high proportion to Cork and Limerick. They then argued that its abolition will have a bad effect on "the most densely populated and poorest areas". The reality of the situation is that the existing scheme is a form of subsidy to property owners paid for in the main by the general taxpaying public including the less well off citizens of Dublin, Cork and Limerick. Such a situation is manifestly unjust. Deputies on the other side cannot have it both ways. On the other hand, they call for a reduction in the level of taxation but when the Government take steps in that direction there is an outcry from them.

A number of Deputies, including Deputy Woods, spoke about the general level of crime. The Minister for Justice has already spoken in the House on this issue on a number of occasions in the recent past. I will not go over the same ground once again. This Bill has a specific purpose, that is, to reduce the circumstances in which payment of compensation may be made for malicious damage to property. In my reply to the debate I will confine myself to those matters which are pertinent to that question. However, I will say this. There is no doubt that the overall downward trend in crime which commenced two years ago is continuing. More important, for the purposes of this legislation this drop in crime is reflected, according to the incoming president of the Insurance Institute of Ireland, in the lower number of insurance claims arising from specific criminal operations. This must inevitably lead to a beneficial effect on the general level of insurance premiums and the availability of insurance.

I was saddened to see both Deputy Woods and Deputy Briscoe engaging in the course of their contributions in scaremongering by suggesting that this Bill will result in the establishment on a wide scale of protection rackets. Deputy Flynn also referred to this. Allegations in regard to the operation of protection rackets have been made before but, when investigated by the Garda Síochána, no evidance was adduced to substantiate the, allegations.

One case ended up in court. That is nonsense. Two people are in prison as a result of it. That is the second time the Minister has made that allegation.

If Deputy Woods cannot listen to what is going on, he has an alternative. He cannot interrupt.

On a point of order, I would like to point out that the Minister of State is misleading the House at this point.

That is not a point of order.

She is misleading the House with false information.

That is not a point of order and Deputy Woods knows that.

Deputy Woods will resume his seat.

In any event there is only one way to deal with this type of crime and that is for the matter to be reported immediately——

I ask the Minister's officials to make a note for the next time round.

It is grossly disorderly for the Deputy to refer to officials.

We would love to have a copy of the Minister's speech.

That is a perpetual accusation or claim which Deputy Woods makes again and again in debates.

If the Minister of State asks the superintendents——

If Deputy Woods does not behave himself, he will leave the House. I will not tolerate that.

I would love to leave the House because it is a question of crime in Dublin city. The Government could not care less about it.

That is rubbish.

The Minister of State without interruption.

A cheap political point.

In any event, there is only one way to deal with this particular type of crime and that is for the matter to be reported immediately to the Garda Síochána so that the offenders can be apprehended as quickly as possible and dealt with by the courts. To seek to maintain the malicious injuries scheme because of the possibility of the emergence of protection rackets would be to question our society's ability to cope with crime. To adopt that position would be completely unacceptable to the Government but that seems to be the position being adopted by Deputy Woods and his colleagues. Before I leave the general area of crime in so far as it relates to this Bill, I want to refer to one remark made by Deputy Woods.

On a point of order, the Minister of State is reading her reply from a script. Does she not intend to supply the script to Members of the Opposition in the normal way?

The Chair has no control over that, Deputy. The Chair would like to say this. If what Deputy Woods wants was applied right across the House throughout all the debates, it would be another story.

Might I ask, a Cheann Comhairle, if you are maintaining an independent position at this point or are you becoming partial towards the Minister of State?

The Deputy should withdraw that remark. I am trying to get order for the Minister of State. She has been interrupted since she stood up.

It is cheap politics.

It is normal procedure, as you know very well, for the Government to circulate a written speech.

The Chair has no control over that.

The Government have the resources to do that all the time.

Before I leave the general area of crime in so far as it relates to this Bill I want to refer to one remark made by Deputy Woods. He contended that there is an essential contradiction in the position of the Minister for Justice when he says, on the one hand, that the level of crime is falling and, on the other, that the level of malicious injuries compensation is going up. I would point out to Deputies that there is a three year limitation period in which the proceedings for compensation for malicious damage must be commenced. There can, therefore, be a delay of up to three years in processing claims and, as a result, there would always be a timelag between a fall off in crime and a reduction in the claims for compensation.

I now turn to the question of insurance. The only public pronouncement which has been made by the insurance industry in relation to this Bill of which I am aware is the statement reported in The Irish Press of 30 January 1986 by a spokesman for one of the insurance companies who said that, while the measure would have an effect on premiums, he did not expect a dramatic increase. For Deputies to suggest that there will be a dramatic and widespread increase in insurance premiums solely as a result of this Bill is wild exaggeration. Owners of certain properties, particularly in urban areas, will obviously be affected to some degree. However, the cost of insurance for the average citizen is unlikely to be greatly affected whether it is in respect of his house or motor car, by this Bill. Deputy Woods alleged, and I quote——

The Minister is in cloud cuckooland.

The Deputy had his time. I quote:

...the Minister's proposals will directly cause motor and motor cycle insurance premiums to rocket upwards....

I have to point out that it is in limited circumstances only — for example, where a car is stolen and then recovered damaged — that substantial claims arise in respect of motor vehicles. The number and cost of claims of this nature is small compared with the number and cost of motor insurance claims in respect of accidental damage and personal injury. Any increase in car insurance premiums as a result of this Bill should therefore be negligible.

I have another reason for saying this. The present position whereby compensation is payable under the malicious injuries scheme without the need to prove malicious intent, where a car is taken and recovered crashed, is a result of a Supreme Court decision handed down in June 1984 on the interpretation of the 1981 Malicious Injuries Act. Commenting on that decision a spokesman for the Irish Insurance Association was reported in The Irish Press of 8 June 1984 to have said that he would be slow to say that costs would actually go down for motorists as a result of the decision because such cases were not major items in terms of overall motor insurance costs but that it should certainly serve to help contain the costs at least. Now that the position as affects such claims is, in effect, being reversed I would expect that insurance companies would be equally slow to consider raising premiums on account of what, in relation to the more costly claims affecting cars under the malicious injuries scheme, is a return to the pre-1981 position.

Both Deputies Woods and Hyland claimed that about 50 per cent of the amount of compensation paid out under the malicious injuries scheme relates to damage to cars and motorcycles. There is no statistical evidence to back up that claim. In fact there is no evidence that the cost of malicious damage claims in relation to cars and motorcycles constitutes a major element in the overall cost of malicious damage compensation.

The Minister will find out if she asks the insurance companies how much they are collecting.

Deputy Woods referred to figures contained in a survey carried out by Dublin Corporation. I understand that in 1985 Dublin Corporation prepared an estimated breakdown of malicious injuries claims for their area. That suggested that 48 per cent of the number of claims in 1984 was for damage to cars and motorcycles. I should have reservations even in quoting that figure as its statistical base could be called into question. But there is no basis whatsoever for suggesting that because 48 per cent of the number of claims related to motorcars and cycles that 48 per cent of the amount of compensation paid out was in respect of these vehicles. Dublin Corporation do not keep statistics of the cost of claims broken down so as to give the cost in relation to motor cars. But a statistical exercise carried out in Sligo revealed that in 1983, while 39 per cent of the number of claims related to motor vehicles, they account for 5 per cent only of the total amount of compensation claimed.

A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order, I heard the debate in the House and some contributions. I came in to listen to a reply. This is unprecedented. Might I ask you, a Cheann Comhairle, to indicate to the House if it is within the established precedent or order of the House for a Minister, in replying to a Second Stage debate, to read a script which has clearly been prepared before the debate concluded. I would ask you, a Cheann Comhairle, in your capacity as Speaker in this House, in terms of the status of this House——

There is nothing out of order about what the Minister is doing. The Minister is in order.

A Ceann Comhairle: I would seek your guidance on that.

I am not going to enter into an argument with the Deputy.

This is a reply to a debate. If the Chair is telling us that a reply to a debate can be delivered by a junior Minister, who has not responsibility for this——

I have ruled the Minister to be in order and that is that.

A Cheann Comhairle, might I ask you, because it is important that we have guidance on this——

I am not going to hear the Deputy. The Minister to continue.

A Cheann Comhairle, I want to ask a question as a mature——

(Interruptions.)

When the farmers have problems we do not hear much from the Minister of State.

(Interruptions.)

I have been in this House for 21 years. I just want to ask——

(Interruptions.)

Is the Chair now ruling that henceforth a reply to a Second Stage debate will be in order if it is printed and scripted? Is that the ruling now established by the Chair?

I have ruled that the Minister is in order and I have called on her to continue.

This makes a nonsense of Second Stage debate. This is nonsense. This is not a reply to a debate.

(Interruptions.)

I am calling on the Minister. Deputy O'Kennedy will resume his seat.

It has been suggested by Deputy Woods that the Bill should be amended so that persons who cannot get insurance at a reasonable rate——

This is not a reply——

——should be entitled to compensation from the State under the malicious injuries scheme.

A Cheann Comhairle——

The Deputy will resume his seat at once.

A Cheann Comhairle we are grown, mature parliamentarians——

One would not think so.

I am afraid we are, and that note of, teacher: resume your seat, is very sad. This is not a reply.

The Deputy will resume his seat and remain seated.

The Minister has shown a total disregard for the importance of law and order and crime especially in Dublin, Cork and Limerick——

I have ruled that the Minister is in order.

The Minister is not even here. Where is he?

The Chair is being left with no alternative but to invoke the rules and, if this continues——

This is ridiculous.

This is very sad.

In effect what the Deputy is suggesting as a general principle is that the insurance companies and not the Government should decide whether damage should be compensatable by the State. That would be a totally unacceptable position for any Government to adopt. What the Government have decided is to limit compensation to those cases where traditionally insurance cover has not normally been available.

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, our most recent speakers this evening made some very relevant points in this debate——

I have no control——

This is a point of order. The Minister is not even attempting to reply to some of the points raised by Deputy Cowen earlier.

Deputy Brady, please. I have ruled that the Minister is in order.

Might I just say that Deputy Cowen made some very valid points in his contribution this evening. Obviously, the Minister's speech was prepared in advance which affords no opportunity to reply.

I cannot compose the Minister's reply. The Chair cannot do that.

Who has composed it? The Minister is not here to stand over his reply.

The Minister without interruption.

A number of Deputies on both sides of the House said that as a result of this legislation businesses may have problems in obtaining malicious damage cover in particular areas and suggested that specific provision be made for such cases. This problem already exists in relation to other forms of insurance cover — for example, theft and fire insurance — and the enactment of this Bill will not dramatically alter the situation. I understand that in some instances the reluctance of insurers to provide cover may relate to the fact that one is dealing with old buildings which may be fire hazards due to the material used in construction, lack of sprinkler systems, faulty electrical wiring and such like. This is not to deny that a real problem may exist. We have listened to the Deputies on this point and recognise their concern. It is, however, primarily an insurance matter. The Minister for Justice is taking it up with his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to see if anything can be done to deal with any possible vacuum that might result from the passing of this Bill.

Deputy Woods has been very liberal in his use of quotations from sources in the insurance industry to provide precise figures for increases in insurance rates arising from this Bill. The prime motive behind any private sector firm, including those in the insurance sector, is to make a profit. They are of course, perfectly entitled to put forward their views on any legislation that might affect them. However, because the insurance industry have a particular interest in the matter they cannot be regarded as being entirely neutral. As a result any views they put forward on the likely increase in insurance premiums as a result of this Bill have to be viewed in that light. The Deputy quoted pending increases of 45 per cent in primary school insurance premiums and 30 per cent in the case of post primary schools. I am not going to comment on those figures. However, I would point out that insurance premiums charged to schools cover many other risks apart from malicious damage — for example, public liability, the pupils, staff, indemnity of staff and board members and school buildings.

I understand that the existing level of primiums is likely to be increased, partly because of anticipated increased costs for insurers arising from this Bill, but also because extended cover is to be provided in the area of public liability and indemnity. These increases will, of course, be subject to the normal consultation process between the insurance industry and the Department of Industry and Commerce.

As to the particular matter of damage caused to school buildings through vandalism the Ministers for Education and Justice are fully conscious of the problems facing schools in this area. The question was the subject of discussions between officials of the Department of Justice and officials of the Department of Education. As Deputy Woods and other Deputies rightly pointed out, schools in certain areas face particular problems. I understand that the Department of Education are working closely with those schools in order to improve security by such measures as the installation of unbreakable glass and better fencing.

Deputy Leonard and Deputy O'Hanlon raised the question of certain damage caused maliciously to local authority property which does not come within the scope of the Malicious Injuries Scheme. The Minister for Justice is having consultations about this matter with the Minister for the Environment. What is essentially at issue here is the way in which the cost of repairing such damage should be met. This may well be a matter that might be more appropriately considered in the context of the general funding of local authorities but, as I have said, the Minister for Justice is in consultation with the Minister for the Environment on the question.

Deputy Leonard also asked about providing some kind of appeal mechanism if a certificate is refused by a chief superintendent. The example he quoted relates to a non-statutory scheme under which the Government reimburse local authorities the full cost of compensation awarded agains them for damage caused by the use of explosives and relating to the disturbances in Northern Ireland. As, under the new scheme, the full cost of all awards will be met by the Exchequer, that particular scheme will terminate once the Bill comes into effect. There will then be a statutory scheme in its place and the question whether an organisation of the type mentioned in section 2 of the Bill was involved will, in the event of a dispute on the issue, be decided upon by the courts. Provision of a certificate by a chief superintendent is intended to help the applicant prove that such an organisation was involved. If the chief superintendent refuses to give a certificate it will be open to the applicant to use other evidence to prove to the court that such an organisation was involved. In the light of that there does not seem to be a need for any further appeal mechanism.

Deputy Kelly's point in relation to section 8 of the Bill will be considered before Committee Stage but it may be said at this juncture that section 8 is continuing the same basic provision that exists in section 22 of the 1981 Act which as far as I am aware has not given rise to any particular difficulties.

Deputy Flynn also mentioned that no special provision was being made in relation to agricultural property. There is no particular problem in obtaining insurance cover for agricultural property. Many companies provide insurance in this area, including the Farmers' Business Development Insurance Company established by the Irish Farmers' Association in 1970. In addition, disputes which might involve malicious damage are no longer a common feature.

Deputy Flynn referred to the fact that in England there was compensation available for malicious damage in certain circumstances. In fact, in England compensation for malicious damage is available only when the damage results from disorder caused by riot. No compensation is available from public funds in respect of damage caused in any other circumstances. This has been the position in England since the last century.

Deputy Skelly spoke about abuse in relation to claims for malicious damage under the existing schemes. He said that if this problem were dealt with the level of claims would be reduced. The fact is that in the final analysis it is a matter for the courts to decide whether a claim is well founded or not. The claimant must prove his case to the satisfaction of the court. Of course, the matter might not go to court if the local authority is in no doubt that the damage was caused maliciously.

Deputy Cowen claimed that it is not possible to claim compensation for malicious damage unless those who caused the damage are unknown. This is not correct. It may be that in many cases the actual perpetrators will be unknown but this is not a condition for claiming compensation.

In conclusion, I would again make the point that what the Government are doing here is transferring an existing charge on the public purse — in other words the general taxpayer — to where it essentially belongs. The Government see no reason why the ordinary taxpayer in Ireland should any longer be subject to a greater burden in this respect than his counterpart in other countries.

Will the Government compensate schools and community centres for the additional insurance costs which will arise directly from the measures now being taken?

Is the question agreed?

I appreciate that the Minister for Justice is not here and that the Minister of State is replying on his behalf. The Minister should be here. He is in the House tonight and there is no reason why he should not be here to answer.

The Deputy has asked a question. I have paused and there is nothing more I can do about it.

It would be a matter for the Minister for Education.

Did the Minister for Education ask the Minister to make provision? I understand that very serious representations have been made about the impact of this legislation on boards of management of schools, particularly in the Dublin, Cork and Limerick areas.

All those matters will be considered before Committee Stage.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 55.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Myra.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Liam T.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Naughten, Liam.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • O'Brien, Willie.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Prendergast, Frank.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Glenn, Alice.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Kavanagh Liam.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McLoughlin, Frank.
  • Manning, Maurice.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Molony, David.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
  • Skelly, Liam.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Byrne, Seán.
  • Calleary Seán.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Francis.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, William.
  • O'Keeffe, Edmond.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Ormonde, Donal.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?

There is not a Minister of any sort in the House at the moment. They are turning their backs on Dublin city and on the victims of crime there.

It is proposed to take Committee Stage on Tuesday next, 1 July 1986, subject to agreement between the Whips.

It is a big joke. The Government have turned their backs on Dublin, Cork and Limerick.

They have turned their backs on Ireland.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 1 July 1986.
Top
Share