Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Jul 1986

Vol. 368 No. 8

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

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".

Dr. Woods

Section 1 sets out the interpretation applying to the Bill and it says that its purpose is to amend the scheme of compensation for malicious damage to property contained in the Malicious Injuries Act, 1981, to confine awards of compensation to damage caused by riot and activities of unlawful organisations.

The Act referred to is the Malicious Injuries Act, 1981, which provides for compensation for malicious damage to property and for loss of property unlawfully taken as a result of various malicious acts. The 1981 Act is very widely used especially now when crime levels are so high. We are opposed to the Bill and to the steps taken by the Government in relation to the 1981 Act. This Act provides compensation for malicious damage to property and for loss of property where the aggregate amount of damage exceeds £100. The Government are now proposing that the 1981 Act should be taken in conjunction with this Bill which is very restrictive because it confines compensation to very limited circumstances which are set out in the Bill.

Could the Minister give details in relation to expenditure under the 1981 Act for the past five years or so?

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mrs. Fennell)

In 1980, the total cost amounted to £6.139 million; in 1981, it was £8.468 million; in 1982, it was £9.972 million; in 1983, it was £13.664 million; in 1984, it was £17.347 million; and in 1985 it amounted to £20 million.

Dr. Woods

What is the estimated figure for 1986?

Mrs. Fennell

It is just under £20 million.

Dr. Woods

From the figures which the Minister has given it can be seen that expenditure in this area has increased from about £10 million in 1982 to £20 million in 1985. Expenditure has doubled since 1982 and, presumably, this is why the Government want to alter the 1981 Act because it has resulted in an expenditure of £20 million in compensation to the victims of crime. Indeed on Second Stage the Minister was quite fortright about that and he said that the purpose of the Bill was simply to reduce the impact on the Exchequer. We can see then why the Minister is planning to do this at this time. During the period from 1982 to 1985 the cost had doubled from almost £10 million to £20 million per annum and is continuing to rise at more or less the same rate. Can the Minister tell us what amount of that money was expended in relation to Dublin city and county and in relation to Cork and Limerick, the three major areas principally affected by this Act as it stands at the moment?

Mrs. Fennell

Dublin city and county, taken together, represent about 50 per cent of the total claims.

Dr. Woods

If I remember rightly, the figure for Dublin city and county came to approximately £13 million which is more than 50 per cent. These are figures which were put together earlier. I thought the Minister might have figures available for us tonight so as to make clear to the House the impact of the measures she is proposing. In reply to a question dated 26 February I was told that the 1985 estimated amounts for Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council were £7.898 million and £4.488 million respectively. I discovered later that the actual amount paid in 1985 in the county was £4.7 million as against an estimate at that time of £4.488 million. This totals roughly £12.5 million for Dublin city and county. Has the Minister got any more accurate figures? Am I correct in thinking that that is approximately the impact of this Act on Dublin city and county? The Minister has not given us any figures for Cork and Limerick. My understanding is that this Act is particularly important in Dublin city and county, and in Cork and in Limerick. That is why I wonder if the Minister can tell us just how important it is, in financial terms, to these three major cities.

Mrs. Fennell

The figures I quoted to the Deputy are the figures for the whole country. I do not have individual breakdowns for the regions he mentioned except to say that approximately 50 per cent of the totals are for Dublin city and county.

Dr. Woods

I would like to point out that that is most unsatisfactory. The Minister is proposing virtually to wipe out this Act or to maintain only a very small part of it. I would expect that the Minister, coming into this House with a proposal to abolish this major scheme of compensation for the victims of crime whose property has been damaged — and that includes schools, community centres, motorists whose cars have been damaged — would know what she is talking about. I would be suggesting that the but to approach it in this way I need to know exactly what the effect is. The Minister says approximately 50 per cent relates to Dublin city and county. But we know that it is a good deal more than 50 per cent; it is more than £12.5 million for Dublin city and county. Has the Minister no estimate for Cork and Limerick? My understanding is that Dublin, Limerick and Cork are the three areas where the impact of this Government decision will be most felt. Can the Minister give us any idea of what the position is in Cork? I appreciate that she has some idea of what the position is in Dublin.

Mrs. Fennell

I have not got the exact figures, as I have already said. I can only give the Deputy approximate figures for Dublin and we are still on the interpretation of section 1 of the Bill.

Dr. Woods

I do not mind if the Minister gives me the figures later. The point is that I am trying to interpret the impact of this Bill and the Act that we have. I am talking about the Malicious Injuries Act, 1981, which is the one that we have and which the Government are proposing to change. It is the impact of this Bill that I am talking about. Are the Government not concerned about its impact in Cork or Limerick where, as I understand it, the impact will be very considerable? Have the Government no estimate of what the impact will be in these two major cities?

Mrs. Fennell

At the risk of repeating myself constantly, I do not have the exact figures to hand but I certainly would be willing to get them out for the Deputy.

Dr. Woods

Am I to take it that the Minister has no estimates either for Cork and Limerick?

Mrs. Fennell

No.

Dr. Woods

The Minister had an estimate for Dublin but not for Cork and Limerick.

Mrs. Fennell

No.

Dr. Woods

Could the Minister have these figures available for tomorrow if the debate is due to go on tomorrow morning? With respect, I would suggest that we really should not be discussing this without realising what this Bill means to the ordinary people in places like Dublin, Cork and Limerick. We have little option but to go ahead and discuss this because we know that the Labour Party will line up with Fine Gael and vote down any suggestions we make here — that seems to be the intention of the Government in this respect. But we, and people around the country need to know what is happening. People in Cork, particularly, would like to know what the position will be so I would be grateful if the Minister would give us this information as soon as it is possible to provide it. The Malicious Injuries Act of 1981 has been very important to ordinary citizens who have fallen victims of crime and that is the Act we will be altering. Once the Government force this measure through the House there will no longer be compensation for the vast majority of people who would normally benefit under the provisions of the Act. I presume that there is no point at this stage in asking the Minister if she has any idea of the local authority share in the Act at the moment. The Minister has a global national figure. Has she the share to be contributed by the local authorities, either nationally or broken down?

Mrs. Fennell

This point did not come up in the Second Stage debates nor was indication given about it. I would be happy to produce the individual regional figures for the Deputy tomorrow. Can he tell me which areas he is interested in? Does he want the figures for cities or for all local authorities?

Dr. Woods

First, I was asking about the global expenditure in Dublin, Cork and Limerick. Subsequently, I was asking about the share under the present legislation for Dublin, Cork and Limerick. Does the Minister know the share paid by the local authorities in those areas? I take it that she does not have figures for that with her.

Mrs. Fennell

No, but I have the national figures for the years I have given. Does the Deputy want these?

Dr. Woods

Yes.

Mrs. Fennell

The costs appropriate to local authorities, starting with 1980, are as follows: 1980, £2.920 million; 1981, £3.689 million; 1982, £4.336 million, 1983, £3.871 million; 1984, £3.671 million; and 1985, £4 million.

Dr. Woods

I thank the Minister. That clarifies the position globally in relation to local authorities. For 1985, and presumably also in 1986, the figure is approximately £4 million as far as local authorities are concerned. I presume that figure is part of the total £20 million which the Minister gave me? In other words, the cost to the Exchequer would be——

Mrs. Fennell

£16 million.

Dr. Woods

I wish to raise now the question of unlawful organisations. The interpretation section says that "unlawful organisation" has the meaning assigned to it by section 18 of the Offences Against the State Act, 1939. Section 18 of that Act states in Part III — Unlawful Organisations:

In order to regulate and control in the public interest the exercise of the constitutional right of citizens to form associations, it is declared that any organisation which——

(a) engages in, promotes, encourages, or advocates the commission of treason or any activity of a treasonably nature, or

(b) advocates, encourages, or attempts the procuring by force, violence, or other constitutional means of an alteration in the Constitution, or

(c) raises or maintains or attempts to raise or maintain a military or armed force in contravention of the Constitution or without constitutional authority, or

(d) engages in, promotes, encourages, or advocates the commission of any criminal offence or the obstruction of or interference with the administration of justice or the enforcement of the law, or (e) engages in, promotes, encourages, or advocates the attainment of any particular object, lawful or unlawful, by violent, criminal, or other unlawful means, or

(f) promotes, encourages, or advocates the non-payment of moneys payable to the Central Fund or any other public fund or the non-payment of local taxation,

shall be an unlawful organisation within the meaning and for the purposes of this Act and this Act shall apply and have effect in relation to such organisation accordingly.

That section is being used in relation to this Bill which we have before us. Could the Minister tell us at this stage what organisations at present would be regarded and listed as such unlawful organisations?

Mrs. Fennell

I would suggest to the Deputy any organisation that qualified under that list of descriptions which would encourage any activities which would be against the interest of the administration of the State but there are no names of listed organisations.

Dr. Woods

Does the Minister not have a list of those listed organisations?

Mrs. Fennell

There are no such organisations as such listed under this section of the Act. There are some that would be listed under section 19.

Dr. Woods

Section 19 of the original Act?

Mrs. Fennell

No, of the Act that we are discussing — the Offences Against the State Act.

Dr. Woods

Does the Minister have a list of those organisations? I take it these are the only areas to which malicious injury claims will apply. Since the legislation will apply to so few, perhaps the Minister will let us know what organisations are listed at present? She says section 19, Suppression Orders apply. Perhaps she will let us know, apart from just a general definition, what organisations are listed?

Mrs. Fennell

There are no organisations listed, as I said, under this section but the organisations listed under section 19 of the 1939 Act would be unlawful organisations under this provision.

Dr. Woods

Can the Minister tell us which organisations they are?

Mrs. Fennell

The obvious ones that come to mind would be the IRA and the INLA.

Dr. Woods

This, I take it, will only apply to organisations on this side of the Border, within the Republic?

Mrs. Fennell

Yes, that is correct.

Dr. Woods

Paragraph (f) in section 18 mentions an organisation which promotes, encourages, or advocates the non-payment of moneys payable to the Central Fund or any other public fund or the non-payment of local taxation.

Some organisations such as the Association of the Combined Residents Association recommend the non-payment of certain funds. They advocate the non-payment of moneys payable to the central fund or any other public fund or non-payment of local taxation. ACRA, for instance, would relate to water charges, ground rents and so on. Are those organisations included in the Minister's definition?

Mrs. Fennell

It is a rather difficult question. There is no case law on the definition of unlawful organisation. While one cannot be definite one way or the other as to how the courts might interpret the definition, it might be that the operation of any such organisation would have to affect the security, including the economic security, of the State before it could come within the definition.

Mr. O'Dea

It seems rather odd that this vague term "unlawful organisation", which has been used in the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, should be carried forward into this legislation in 1986. The Minister admitted just now that there is no case law in the definition of unlawful organisation. I think the debate has illustrated the fact that the term is extremely vague. I wonder if we could ask the Minister at this stage to have another look at the legislation so that we will know exactly what is involved. We are talking about a whole new code for malicious damages. This term "unlawfull organisation" is central to the proposed new code of malicious damages. We would like, as Deputy Woods has asked, a list of what is involved. We would like some definite idea of what is involved.

Mrs. Fennell

We will look at it and examine it further.

Dr. Woods

Perhaps the Minister might see if there is any further information available on this section before Report Stage, which is likely to be debated tomorrow morning. As far as the interpretation is concerned, it sets out fairly clearly the Acts we are dealing with, the Malicious Injuries Act, 1981, and this Act. The Principal Act is the Malicious Injuries Act, 1981. That is referred to in this Act thereafter as the Principal Act. That Act is now about to be substantially emasculated and would hardly be a Principal Act once the Government have gone ahead with their intentions. Finally, the question of the unlawful organisations seems to be left as a residual. The Government were determined to take away everything else and said "We have to cover subversives and the possible activities which could arise in that respect and therefore we will just leave the definition of unlawful organisation", even though that would appear to be a fairly wide definition given what we have read from the 1939 Act.

As far as this interpretation section is concerned, I know that we cannot go much further with it at this stage other than to point out that there will be very little to interpret once the Government go ahead with their intentions. The Act, which is and will continue to be called, the Malicious Injuries Act will be a very pale shadow of its former self and will have very little to offer to the citizens of the Republic in relation to protection and support in the event of their becoming the victims of criminal attacks. Their property will no longer be compensated under this Act. It will become some sort of a mini Act which will only be brought into operation on fairly rare occasions which might arise under the definition of the unlawful organisation.

Section 1(2)(a) states:

A reference in the Acts to a section is a reference to a section of the Act in which the reference occurs unless it is indicated that reference to some other enactment is intended.

I take it that that is purely a technical definition. Section 1(2)(b) states:

A reference in the Acts to a subsection, paragraph or subparagraph is a reference to the subsection, paragraph or subparagraph of the provision in which the reference occurs unless it is indicated that reference to some other provision is intended.

I take it that that also is purely a technical provision.

Mr. Hyland

When replying to Deputy Woods's question the Minister revealed the rather staggering and frightening increase in the level of malicious damages caused between 1980 and 1985. There was an increase from £6.1 million to £9.9 million to £13.6 million to £17.3 million to £20 million. Those figures reveal the real motivation behind the Government's intention to bring in this Bill. I would like to ask the Minister, in the event of householders not being able to afford house insurance — which is the only alternative to malicious damages — and with the Minister's intention to disband malicious damages in that instance, are these householders to be left totally abandoned to have their property destroyed with no redress in any way against the State?

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise on this section. It comes up more properly on section 2. Section 1 is merely a definition section.

Mr. Hyland

The Minister provided the information.

An Ceann Comhairle

Section 1 does not do anything. It defines certain words and these will be dealt with in other sections by reference to the definitions.

Mr. Hyland

I can defer my question until later.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have an opportunity of dealing with that later.

Dr. Woods

We are only agreeing to section 1 standing part of the Bill because it is necessary to have interpretations before we begin to disagree about the rest of the Bill. We intend to disagree with the rest of the Bill. In so far as this section only deals with interpretations, we will agree to it.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 2.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 1 to 7 in the name of Deputy Woods have been ruled out of order.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Woods

Amendments Nos. 1 to 7, inclusive, and amendment No. 10, were intended to preserve part of the statutory charge and they have been ruled out of order. Standing Order No. 95 (1) and (2) provides as follows:

(2) The Dáil may, on motion made by the member in charge of a Bill, give an instruction to a Committee to which a Bill has been committed empowering it to make amendments, the nature of which shall be specified, provided that the amendments be relevant to the general subject matter and not in conflict with the principle of the Bill.

(3) If any amendment made to a Bill be not within the title of the Bill the Committee shall amend the title accordingly and report the same specially to the Dáil.

It is quite clear that our amendments would be in order, but we find on page 87 that Standing Order 188 provides that an amendment to a Bill which could have the effect of imposing or increasing a charge may not be moved by any Member save a member of the Government or a Parliamentary Secretary — I take it that now applies to a Minister of State. The first amendment to this section was to provide——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to accept the ruling of the Chair.

Dr. Woods

I am not disagreeing with the ruling of the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy agree with the Chair's interpretation of the Standing Order?

Dr. Woods

I want to make a point. We are discussing section 2——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy can make the points of his amendment on the section.

Dr. Woods

I am speaking on the section. My first amendment was:

In page 3, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where damage the aggregate amount of which exceeds £100 is caused to any premises or property whose principal purpose is the provision of education, the person who suffers the damage shall be entitled to obtain compensation in accordance with the Malicious Injuries Acts 1981 and 1986.".

I was suggesting that the Minister might leave the provision there in respect of primary schools in particular and it would mean that only part of the statutory charge would fall. It might mean additional expenditure which the Minister did not intend in the Bill. It is regrettable that under Standing Orders the Opposition cannot make a proposal that the Minister would abolish part of the existing statutory charge. We cannot propose that the Minister would go half way. We cannot suggest that the Minister might go further than half way. The Minister in that way would be getting most of what she and the Government want but she would still be providing protection for primary schools for whom this provision will be disastrous in parts of this city and in Cork and Limerick.

We are particularly familiar with the position, particularly in primary schools, in Dublin as the result of increasing crime and vandalism and the inability of the Government to control them. The cost to the schools have gone up with the increasing rate of crime and vandalism, which has doubled since 1982. The Government's response is to pull the props from under the schools. Can the Minister tell us what would be the cost of accepting these amendments? As far as the Chair and the rules are concerned it is regrettable that we cannot make such a proposal, though we propose a reduction but not as big a reduction as the Minister has in mind.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy could put down an amendment to amend Standing Orders.

Dr. Woods

I would have as much difficulty getting that through as I have with my amendments tonight.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot get anything without trying. He does not know what might happen.

Dr. Woods

I suppose it is better to have tried and lost than not to have tried at all. We are trying to get the Government and Deputies over there to consider the disastrous implications for primary schools. I appeal to Deputies to go out and to speak to school boards of management and ask what the impact of these proposals will be. On the other hand the Minister could adopt this amendment and put it down on Report Stage tomorrow, because under Standing Orders the Minister of State would have the same authority as former Parliamentary Secretaries. The Minister could take our amendments and modify them and resubmit them tomorrow. I would love to have a vote on this amendment——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot even move it.

Dr. Woods

I want to see Labour Deputies coming in here, voting and then going out telling the boards of management that they are being looked after. I should like to see them having an opportunity to vote on this simple question. Deputy Taylor has said that the school managements can get insurance policies. If he had gone out to inquire he would have found that the increase to be borne by primary schools in Dublin as a result of this Bill will be between 40 per cent and 45 per cent. I will have great pleasure in giving the Deputy an opportunity to vote on this section.

We are totally opposed to what is being done. It is classical Thatcherite Government action which we are seeing. I am surprised to see the labour Party and, in particular, their Chief Whip trotting in behind as they trot behind most of the other things these days. It is about time they stood on their own feet and looked after those who are going to suffer as a result of this measure. I would ask the Minister of State if she has the information available on the cost in a year of excluding educational facilities? If the Minister of State does not have a global figure which covers education generally, perhaps she could tell us what the figure is for primary schools? That is an easy one to get. Can the Minister of State tell us what the impact will be in total on primary schools?

Mr. Molony

As I understand section 2, where damage is done either as a result of riot or by an unlawful organisation anybody whose property is damaged will be able to recover the cost of that damage from the State. Under the existing malicious injuries code this would include State bodies. Obviously, it would include individuals and private companies but it would also include semi-State bodies such as the ESB and Bord Telecom. It seems to exclude one group, peculiarly, and they are the local authorities. In other words, if a property owned by a local authority is damaged, even as a result of riot or by an unlawful organisation, as I understand the Bill the position will remain that the local authority will not be able to recoup their losses from the State.

This anomaly has not arisen for the first time on this Bill. It is already an anomaly which exists in the malicious injuries code. To maintain the spirit of providing some source of funds for local authorities who are faced with difficulties such as this it would not be unreasonable to correct this anomaly now particularly in view of the general changes which have taken place and to provide in the event that property owned by a local authority is damaged either as a result of riot or unlawful organisation the local authority would be able to recoup their losses from the State. I would ask the Minister of State to consider amending the section, if I am reading it correctly. I do not think it is an unreasonable request. In view of the policy that now exists and has existed for a number of years where local authorities have access to central funds to deal with damage done in this type of situation they should, equally, in respect of damage to property they own be able to recoup their losses directly.

Mr. J. Leonard

Arising from what the previous speaker has said there has been an amendment tabled by Deputy Woods which states that notwithstanding any other provision of the Malicious Injuries Acts 1981 and 1986, a local authority shall be entitled to apply for compensation in accordance with the particular section. I mentioned on Second Stage that this applied to County Monaghan more than to any other county. We had a situation where in 1981 during the H-Block hunger strikes one of the finest buildings in the county was burned down. Under this Bill the property owner must still institute proceedings against the appropriate local authority. He will receive compensation from the local authority's own property recoup it from the Minister. This means that if the local authority's own property is damaged in a riot they cannot institute proceedings against themselves. They cannot pay compensation to themselves and they cannot recoup from the Minister. There is a serious anomaly there. This has caused much concern to local authorities and it has caused a lot of expense to local authorities. This is money which they have not got and which they have to provide. We had the property covered by insurance. We met a number of Ministers and discussed the problem. The position was that, while we were covered by insurance, when the insurance company's assessors came to examine what was left of the property their estimate was much less than the actual damage.

A further problem was that the Department of Justice following the proposal to reconstruct the building asked for additional changing rooms and an additional court. These added considerably to the expenditure, expenditure which if the incident had not happened we would not have had to carry. The ESB and Bord Telecom are protected in respect of riot damage. Local authorities are not. It would appear desirable and practicable that some clause be inserted to the effect that damage to local authority property would be covered. I have not got the figures in the case I referred to.

Costs will now be paid. In a recent case the local costs to Monaghan County Council were over £5,000. This was for a claim that had been reduced. The claim was for £800 in the District Court. The award, which was for a glass, was £50. There was an appeal to the High Court. The award was increased to £75. It cost Monaghan County Council £5,000 in fees to defend the case plus the appeal because the applicant was successful in getting the award increased from £50 to £75. This was for a claim which previously had been lodged for £800. I have raised this case in the House continuously. It is a serious situation.

In all fairness, the applicant should have been at some loss for making such an excessive claim which did not stand up. That was the council's view at that time. We also believed that there should be some incentive to settle cases. The county council should be allowed to lodge an amount in court which would be described as being a reasonable settlement sum. Then, if the applicant went ahead with the case and the award was less, he would suffer as far as costs are concerned. That is something we have given deep thought to on a continuing basis. I would hope that the situation will not be allowed to continue where local authorities cannot be reimbursed for damage caused. This is an ideal time to deal with this matter. It is very important that the Minister of State should deal with it because we have a practical situation in County Monaghan. A similar incident could occur again along the Border. Some of the other courthouses in the county might be more easily damaged than that one which had a very strong structure. Nevertheless, it would be a very costly exercise to restore them as we have tried to do on money which we have not got and for which we have to float loans from the local loans fund. I would appeal to the Minister of State to redress that anomaly. She can do so under Deputy Woods' amendment.

Mr. Taylor

I have to agree with Deputy Woods in one respect, but in one respect only, and that is in connection with the subject matter of his amendment. I was not aware that his amendments were to be ruled out of order and I did not have an opportunity of studying the wording of the Standing Order. The Minister brings in a Bill, the effect of which if passed would be to reduce the charge on the public purse by, say, £1 million. It seems strange as a matter of general principle to rule out of order an amendment that would save the taxpayer £0.5 million. At this juncture the whole thing is in the melting pot and the end result would still be a net saving to the taxpayer, not an increase. The Chair has obviously studied the terms of the Standing Order but there seems to be something there which requires amendment and perhaps the Committee on Procedure and Privileges should consider the matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

The practice is to consider the matter within the Bill before the House.

Mr. Taylor

I have not studied the wording of that Standing Order and it is some time since I looked at it. I accept the Chair's ruling that this is the effect of it, but it would seem to be quite illogical and something that ought to be amended. The net effect overall would still be a saving to the public purse rather than any increase.

I find it very strange that the Fianna Fáil Party oppose this measure, of which this section is the crucial factor. I believe they are opposing this for the sake of opposing something and that they have not thought it through. We all know what the origins of this measure are. This was a punitive measure brought in by the British authorities of the day to punish Irish people who were fighting for their freedom. In effect, the British said that they could blow up or destroy as they wished but they would pay for it through the local rates. This is the measure that the so-called party of reality attempt, with some measure of bravado, to stand over and preserve. It is a peculiar measure which has no parallel in any other country, as far as I know.

Dr. Woods

We are the party of the people. Deputy Taylor belongs to the party of alleged reality.

Mr. Taylor

For some peculiar reason the party of reality decided to make a thing about this measure. They overlooked the fact that if a loss occurs as a result of a malicious injury it has to be borne somewhere. We are not in the 1977 situation where it can be pulled down from the skies or one imagines that perhaps the German authorities or the USA or the Soviet Union will send a donation to pay for it. We have gone past that now.

Dr. Woods

We are in the days of massive emigration.

Mr. Taylor

There are four categories I can think of which could bear the loss incurred as a result of a malicious injury. The first category is represented by the general body of taxpayers; every taxpayer would make his contribution and the State would pay for the malicious injury. Secondly, the local taxpayers or ratepayers could bear the cost; that is another possibility. The third category would be the insurance companies, who are very much involved in this issue. The fourth and final possibility, although maybe there is another one I cannot think of, is that the person who suffers the damage should bear the loss. One has to approach this problem with some kind of balance and not talk about it as though there were some magical source from which the money to pay for these losses could come. It must come from one of those four categories.

Up to now the schools, like most other people, covered their property against malicious injury with their insurance companies, just as they took out fire and burglary cover. Most institutions and individuals took out an insurance policy. In most cases when a malicious injury occurred the insurance company paid out to the person or institution which suffered. Then in the fullness of time, perhaps two or three years later, the insurance company recouped their loss from the taxpayer in one form or another.

It is not really possible to say whether an insurance company in assessing the level of their premiums took into account the fact that they would get the money back from the local authority. Everybody can have his own view on this point. My opinion is that this was not at all a factor they took into account in assessing the amount of the premium they charged. That was their own little joke at the peculiarity of the Irish malicious injuries system. There was none of that nonsense in the UK. The British Parliament brought in the system but only for the Irish; there was no way they would bring it in for the British. The insurance companies, most of which were British, saw this as a great little number in Ireland. They would collect the premiums in the same way as anywhere else, pay out for the damage with one hand but with the other hand they would get the money back from the ratepayers and the taxpayers.

Mr. Dowling

And make a profit.

Mr. Taylor

That is right. The money went into their coffers. The insurance companies' executives sat in their leather-lined boardrooms with their paintings on the wall in their millionaire office blocks. If anybody tells me that they sat around their boardrooms assessing the amount of their premiums and decided that the premiums would be £x for this type of insurance but because they would be getting back from the local authorities what they paid out they would reduce the amount to be charged in those cases in Ireland, I will not accept it. I do not believe it for one moment.

They did not take that factor into account. It was a handly little extra profit number they got from the Irish, not from the British because in Britain they paid it out in response to the premiums on their policies. That is the type of system we have been carrying on from the time the British imposed it on us. One thing I find remarkable about the whole system is that we have waited until 1986 to deal with it. Down the years millions of pounds went out of the country to British insurance companies. Every local authority from Monaghan and Cavan to Cork and Waterford made their contribution to the profits of British insurance companies since 1922. Somebody should try to explain why it has taken until 1986 to tackle the problem.

I find it strange and remarkable that the Opposition for some convoluted mystical reason feel there is a way of providing the necessary funds and that the insurance companies collecting the premiums should not bear the cost. That is what they collect their premiums for and any company accepts that it is commensurate with collecting premiums to pay out on claims. However, as far as this brand of insurance is concerned, those companies have had it both ways all these years. I am glad the time has come when we are calling a halt to that nonsense.

Dr. O'Hanlon

If one followed Deputy Taylor's argument through to its logical conclusion one would think there should not be any malicious injury compensation fund even for damage caused by riot or unlawful organisations.

Mr. Taylor

I will deal with that later.

Dr. O'Hanlon

Presumably it is Deputy Taylor's view that there should be a Bill to abolish malicious injury compensation altogether. I should like to ask the Minister if there were negotiations with the insurance companies and if, as Deputy Taylor said, insurance companies are collecting premiums that should cover the cost of malicious injury claims. Is it true that there will not be any increase in the cost of insurance when this legislation is passed? My understanding is that the companies will increase their premiums and that people who have to insure any item will be affected. The already hard pressed motorist will suffer. Many people are not insuring their cars because they cannot afford to. That is deplorable but we must consider young people who need a car to get to work. They are being asked to pay a premium in excess of £1,000 for insurance cover and they now face the prospect of another massive increase in their premiums when this legislation is passed.

Deputy Woods has told us that a 40 per cent increase in premiums for primary schools will be the order of the day when the Bill will be passed. Will this be a question of a circular transfer? Will the Department of Education be paying the increase or will it be left to the management of the school?

Deputy Taylor suggested that Fianna Fáil may be considering going to Germany or the United States for the money but there was never any question of that. It was the Taoiseach who went to the US begging for money under the Anglo-Irish Agreement to try to sustain Garda activity in the Border counties. With the overtime allocation practically absorbed, there is very little money left for the remainder of the year for overtime. It is not hard to understand the serious consequences which will result in other areas of the administration of justice. It is the Deputy's Government who are in the business of going around the world begging for money. It was never suggested by this side of the House that we would go to the US, Germany or anywhere else to find the money for a malicious injury fund.

It is unfortunate that Deputy Woods's amendment was disallowed because it sought to give local authorities the same right to apply for compensation as anybody else. Why are local authorities excluded from claiming damages? I am surprised that Deputy Taylor, a member of a local authority, did not support Deputy Woods's amendment. All local authorities, particularly those in the Border area, will suffer when this legislation is passed. It is a glaring injustice that local authorities who own property will be unable to claim when their property is damaged.

When Monaghan courthouse was burned the repair bill was £1¼ million. I accept that the Department of Justice who used the courtroom made a contribution to the repair bill but the county council had to raise the remainder. In introducing the Bill the Minister should have ensured that local authorities had the same power to claim compensation as anybody else. Why should the Department of Justice have to subvent a local authority when a courthouse is damaged? Why should the Department of Justice have to pay £1 million out of their allocation when the bill should be paid from the malicious injury fund? Why did the Minister not avail of the opportunity to remove a glaring injustice against local authorities who own property?

Mr. Dowling

I agree with the analysis put forward by Deputy Taylor. He put his case admirably. He asked if the Opposition were serious in opposing a measure that is designed to save the taxpayers money. As a member of a local authority I am aware of the cost of claims to the ordinary taxpayer. The measure was introduced by the English to protect their own coffers because of vandalism against property. We have reached the stage here where there is little respect for property, private or State property.

The question of schools has been mentioned. The level of vandalism in schools is in excess of what could be considered acceptable. The schools concerned are not necessarily in inner city areas. They are situated throughout the country. The question must be asked why this is the case. Why should we ask the overburdened taxpayers to continue to pick up the tab for these acts of vandalism against property? I agree with what is proposed in the Bill, that taxpayers should not have to continue to bear the cost.

I am not sure that insurance companies are being fair with the public with regard to the level of premiums charged and I ask the Minister to monitor what is happening in this regard. An examination should be made as to how insurance companies will behave with regard to premiums when this measure is passed into law.

The level of compensation for some properties in respect of malicious damages is in excess of what it should be. When rates were levied on the community, local authorities could levy a few pence in the £ to take account of malicious damage claims. However, only a small proportion of the population now pay rates, mainly the business interests.

Eventually, it all comes back to the taxpayers, mainly the PAYE sector. Other sectors claim to pay taxes. I agree they pay a certain amount but it is much less than what they should pay.

I support what the Government propose, even though it may create problems for schools, as Deputy Woods has claimed, and it may also give rise to problems for those involved in the running of recreational centres. I submit it is a matter of responsibility for the communities concerned to ensure that the level of vandalism diminishes. Insurance companies will increase premiums if their level of profit is not consistent with what it is at the moment. They may point out to us that profitability from this type of insurance is small. Nevertheless, they are in that business. I should not like to think that people could not make a legitimate claim against an insurance company, but where the State is concerned there has always been a certain level of bad behaviour that is quite a scandal. I should like that situation to be brought under control. Where it cannot be proved that an illegal organisation was involved in an incident, even though it may be suspected, will the Minister tell the House what kind of procedure will be followed to ensure that a property owner is entitled to compensation from the State?

Mr. O'Dea

We have to come back to the reason for the introduction of this legislation. I was absolutely stunned to listen to the contribution of Deputy Taylor. He is a person for whom I have some respect but I was amazed at his contribution tonight. He told us this legislation was introduced initially in the twenties to punish the poor Paddies for their misdeeds. Even if we could look into the minds of the people who brought in the legislation then and establish that was the motivation behind it, does Deputy Taylor, the Minister or anybody on that side seriously expect us to believe that was the reason this legislation was brought before us in the past fortnight? Does anyone in the country seriously believe that? Do they believe the Labour Party have had a sudden rush of justice to the head for the first time in the past three years since they have propped up this Government, and that they have suddenly decided to do the right thing by the poor taxpayers? Everyone knows the legislation was introduced for one reason only, namely, to cut back on public expenditure. It is a cost cutting exercise, an expenditure saving measure.

The reason such measures have been brought before the House is that people in the country who have sufficient industrial and economic muscle can wrest what they like from this so-called Government of rectitude. This Government punish those who cannot hit back and they will cut costs at their expense. This is a cowardly, mean and a bullying type of legislation directed against people who cannot fight back.

The pseudo smoked salmon socialists talk about directors of insurance companies in plush boardrooms with paintings on the walls but this cannot conceal the economic fact and the business reality that insurance companies will act to protect their margins. Anyone with a scintilla of common sence knows that. Insurance companies will protect their profits and the taxpayers, whom the Labour Party are so concerned to protect, will finish off being worse off because they will have to pay increased premiums. At the very least, the property owners will suffer because if this Government stay in power much longer there will be no taxpayers left because nobody will be left in employment. Therefore, the taxpayers or property owners whom we are told will be saved all this money may finish up worse off, while at the same time the legislation introduced here will give rise to a number of grotesque anomalies.

Deputy Hyland referred to poor people who will not be able to afford the increased premiums. What will happen to them? I should like to hear the Minister answer that point. Must they just accept their lot and walk away? Deputy Woods' amendment was ruled out of order for reasons I cannot understand. Organisations such as the GAA are providing much needed social and community activity, particularly in rural Ireland and among young people, and they will find themselves having to pay increased insurance premiums. Deputy Woods also referred to schools. I should like to see how this measure, which we are told will promote social justice and save money, will deal with the many cases to which reference has been made during this debate.

Mrs. Fennell

I should like to point out to Deputy Woods that there is a threeyear limitation period within which proceedings for compensation for malicious damage must be commenced. Therefore, there can be a delay of up to three years in processing claims. There will always be a timelag between a fall-off in crime and a reduction in claims for compensation. I accept that malicious damage to schools is a serious problem. This matter was the subject of discussion between officials of the Department of Education and the Department of Justice. I understand that measures are being taken to improve security in schools by the installation of better fencing, burglar alarms and toughened glass and that grants are available for such measures in the case of new and existing primary schools and, in certain circumstances, in the case of secondary schools. We anticipate that this will have a beneficial effect overall on the level of insurance premiums for schools.

The next point raised related to malicious damage to local authority property. This does not come within the scope of the malicious injuries scheme. It is not appropriate in this Bill, which deals with claims from local authorities, to have a provision whereby local authorities could claim against themselves. This matter could not be dealt with under this Bill. This point was raised on Second Stage by Deputy Leonard and Deputy O'Hanlon. The Minister for Justice is in communication with the Ministers for Finance and the Environment on this matter. It has been decided that this Bill is not the appropriate place to deal with this matter because this Bill essentially relates to the way the cost of repairing damage to local authority property should be met. It is a matter for further consideration and is not being forgotten or ignored. The Minister is in consultation with the Ministers for Finance and the Environment as to how such damage should be dealt with. By virtue of section 6 local authority legal costs will be fully recoupable under the new scheme. This point was raised by Deputy Leonard.

Deputy O'Hanlon raised the question of insurance. We saw no reason for the Government to negotiate with the insurance industry on the introduction of this Malicious Injuries Bill. The insurance companies were aware of our proposals and conveyed their views to the Department, which were taken into account. As to the increases in premium as a result of the passing of this Bill, any such increases will be subject to the normal consultation process betwen the Department of Industry and Commerce and the insurance industry. Deputy Dowling asked about damage which was proved to have been caused by unlawful organisations. Section 3 makes provision for proving whether the damage was caused by an unlawful organisation.

Dr. Woods

The Minister says the Department obtained the views from the insurance companies. What were these views? Did the insurance companies indicate what the likely outcome of these measures would be?

Mrs. Fennell

When replying to the Second Stage debate I referred Deputies to a statement which appeared in The Irish Press of 30 January 1986. A spokesman for one of the insurance companies said that while the measures would have an effect on premiums, he did not expect a dramatic increase. I understand the existing levels of premiums are likely to be increased, but not dramatically, partially because of the anticipated increased cost for insurers arising from this Bill, but also because extended cover is to be provided in the area of public liability and indemnity. As I mentioned earlier, these increases will be subject to the normal consultation process between the Department of Industry and Commerce and the insurance industry.

Dr. Woods

The Minister stated that the insurance industry said there would be increases but not dramatic increases. I do not know if Deputy Taylor has influence to get the insurance companies to accommodate the views he expressed here tonight, but I doubt if he has much influence with them. The increases they are already imposing on primary schools are of the order of 40 per cent. I consider that to be a dramatic increase. The statement of 30 January may have been a global statement but that is not what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with the direct impact in specific groups.

Deputy Taylor's contribution was very interesting because he went back to 1836 when these measures were first introduced. That would be of great interest if we were engaged in an historial study on the origins of this kind of measure but what we are facing is the increase in these costs which have occurred in the last five or six years as a result of a very big increase in crime and vandalism. We are not suggesting that this damage is being done by other than members of our own community.

I have to take issue with Deputy Dowling because as far as the communities involved are concerned, these people have done everything in their power to stop crime and vandalism. It is their inability, and the inability of the Garda Síochána, to prevent this type of crime and vandalism which is the real problem. I accept that in Deputy Dowling's area this may be an occasional problem but the fact is that the areas most affected are Dublin, Cork and Limerick.

Almost £13 million of this money is spent on Dublin. I had hoped the Minister would tell us how the money was spent in the Dublin area but perhaps she will have this information tomorrow. The latest figures I have relate to 1984. The Dublin area can be divided into postal districts. In 1984, 16.9 per cent of the Dublin expenditure was paid in Dublin 1 and in Dublin 2 the figure was 8.6 per cent.

We are saying that more than 25 per cent of the Dublin expenditure is going into districts 1 and 2. I know Deputy Taylor is familiar with Dublin, and surely he is familiar with Dublin 1 and Dublin 2, where the major impact of this measure is felt.

Mr. Taylor

Dublin 24.

Dr. Woods

The 1984 figure for Dublin 24 was 1.6 per cent. I do not have the figure for 1985 but perhaps the Minister will be able to give more up to date figures. Perhaps it is understandable that Deputy Taylor is not getting excited about the measure because the impact in his area does not appear to be so great, and there are other areas where the impact is even less.

Mr. Taylor

The national interest——

Dr. Woods

We will look after the national interest but we are talking about people now. We might get Deputy Taylor to realise that we are talking about specific groups of people now. If we could get the Labour Party to start thinking in terms of people, we might get somewhere with this.

Mr. Taylor

Talk about the subject. Never mind the Labour Party.

Dr. Woods

The subject for us on this side of the House is the people and we are talking about groups of people who are affected by this measure.

Mr. Taylor

The general body of taxpayers.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy did his Pontius Pilate act earlier and we all had to witness that and it was very sad to see it because I would have thought he would be in here shouting about the poor, depressed people in the areas which are suffering very seriously from crime and vandalism and about the fact that the Government are planning to pull away one of the props available for people in these areas.

The Minister might have the 1985 figures. Admittedly those I have are for 1984 but presumably his figures will not vary much from those. Deputy Taylor and Deputy Dowling do not seem to realise that since 1982 the schools' policies in the Dublin area have been loaded by up to 100 per cent, that the schools are already carrying very heavy loadings. I know the two Deputies would like to run a pioneering scheme to force the insurance companies to bring down their charges in these areas, and of course we would all be very glad to support them in that effort. On the other hand, it is better to face the reality as it affects the people on the ground. If Deputy Dowling inquiries from the people on the boards of management in Dublin he will find that what I am saying is borne out in very real terms by the people who are trying to keep these primary schools functioning in Dublin. The Minister says discussions are going on.

The Minister accepts that the problem in relation to the first amendment — the education area — is serious. I would like Deputy Dowling to take note that there is a serious problem. It is not something that is being dreamed up and, when this Bill goes through, the impact will be much more serious for the people concerned. That is why we put down this amendment. I leave it to the Minister to consider whether she should exclude schools from the provision being made here, from the abolition of the malicious injuries compensation. It is pretty clear that the Minister for Education will not go out to the schools and say: "There is the money to cover the extra insurance you will incur as a result of this measure which this Government are taking". Does the Minister think that will really happen? Does she not realise that discussions have taken place already with the Minister for Education who said there is nothing he can do about it, that he has raised the question with the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Finance? He might as well be talking to a blank wall. They are not interested. The Minister for Justice said at the outset that the only reason for this measure is to reduce the impact on the Exchequer.

Mr. Taylor

The Deputy means the taxpayers.

Dr. Woods

It is simply a cut-back. It is reducing the impact on the Exchequer.

Mr. Taylor

When the Deputy says "the Exchequer" he means the taxpayers.

Dr. Woods

It will be a great day when the taxpayer happens to get the benefit. The Government could not care less about the schools. That is all I can conclude from what I have heard here tonight and on Second Stage.

In relation to this section I asked the Minister the cost of that measure and of giving that relief. He did not reply so I take it the Minister of State has not got that information available now. Maybe she will have it tomorrow. There might be a great deal more information about the Bill then and we will know what we are talking about. I ask Deputies on the other side of the House how cold and hard they can be when they just could not care less about the impact. They say they will do this anyway. When somebody asks about it they have not got the information because they have never considered it. They have a stony, hardfaced approach of "Just go and do it" and the Labour Party trot along with them: "What do we want facts for? Why do we want to know who is affected?" Surely that is obvious to anyone who has listened to the debate so far tonight.

My second amendment reads:

In page 3, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) (a) Subject to the provisions of this section, where damage the aggregate amount of which exceeds £100 is caused to any premises or property whose principal purpose is the provision of recreational or sporting facilities, the person who suffers the damage shall be entitled to obtain compensation in accordance with the Malicious Injuries Acts 1981 and 1986.

(b) For the purposes of this subsection the following organisations shall be deemed to engage in recreational or sporting activities:—

(i) The Gaelic Athletic Association,

(ii) The Football Association of Ireland,

(iii) The Irish Rugby Football Union,

(iv) The Golfing Union of Ireland,

(v) Any other organisation as the Minister may by order designate".

I am quite happy to leave it to the Minister to designate any sporting organisation who may be appropriate or who should be excluded in this area. I mention the GAA because I can see that bodies like the GAA and the FAI are providing massive facilities throughout the country for the young people who are growing up, and the work these organisations do is an antidote to vandalism and crime. These are the people who are really helping to prevent crime. Surely Deputies on the other side realise that.

In another Bill debated here today the Government are bringing in a national lottery to get money allegedly to give to sporting organisations, although they do not say that in the Bill. It is just raising money for the Exchequer, but they say the intention is to spend this money principally on sporting organisations. If we accept the bona fides of the Government in that respect and therefore that the Government are anxious to encourage and promote these sporting organisations, in this Bill we find that the Government are anxious to penalise these organisations, to pull away the props and supports. You might say this will not happen very often. On the Bull Island St. Anne's golf club and the Suttonians Rugby Football Club were vandalised and burned down. These are the realities outside this House, not the cloud cuckooland Deputy Taylor and his colleagues live in. The Government are turning a blind eye, turning their back on all of these groups. Any Deputy who has anything to do with the soccer, Gaelic and rugby clubs will know that they attract hundreds of thousands of young people, engaging them in worth-while activities, giving them a sense of discipline, community and participation, and what do the Government say to them? "We do not care what you are doing, or if you are vandalised and burned down. We are not prepared to make an exception of you in this area. Run a few more flag days. Try to work up some more money."

What is the whole principle on which this Government are acting? The people who are doing the real work bring out the kids at weekends. They train them during the week. They scrounge to try to put some money together to provide facilities for them. They are finding difficulty in getting insurance. Last week in my constituency the sport weekend was cancelled because the organisers could not pay the insurance costs to cover public liability. We were all set to go out to this annual event and it was just cancelled, many young people were disappointed and let down. How are voluntary groups who are running these organisations supposed to manage? The Government could not care less. They are turning their backs on these groups. That is why I was giving the Minister and the Government an opportunity in amendment No. 2 to say to these people that they realise they are doing a special job, making a special contribution, helping to provide an antidote to crime and vandalism, and that they are giving worthwhile outlets to young people which is good for the community. They should be exempted because the IRA and the INLA are exempted. Why not exempt constructive organisations——

Mr. Taylor

When the Deputy uses the word "exempt" he means putting it on to the taxpayer.

Dr. Woods

The Deputy should play that record somewhere else.

Mr. Taylor

Call a spade a spade.

Dr. Woods

It makes me sick to hear Deputy Taylor's Thatcherlike treatise. Forget it. I am true to my roots and to the people who elected me. I do not know how Deputy Taylor sleeps with a clear conscience. However, that is his business. I sleep easy because I say what I genuinely believe——

Mr. Taylor

All the justice is on that side of the House.

Dr. Woods

I am saying where it lies as far as this measure is concerned and if the Deputy cannot see it I cannot do anything for him. The Ceann Comhairle will not let us press amendment No. 2 and, therefore, it cannot go to a vote. However, the Minister is entitled to consider it and to come back on Report Stage with an amended version or, indeed, to adopt the amendment as it stands. I appeal to the Minister to take a serious look at the work done by these organisations in the community and not to abolish the props and supports which exist at present for these organisations because the effect of withdrawing them will place an extra strain on voluntary bodies and organisations.

The third amendment which I sought to introduce reads as follows:

Subject to the provisions of this section, where damage the aggregate amount of which exceeds £100 is caused to any premises or property whose principal purpose is the provision of religious, or charitable or voluntary service, the person who suffers the damage shall be entitled to obtain compensation in accordance with the Malicious Injuries Acts 1981 and 1986.

The Minister should exempt religious, charitable or voluntary bodies from the abolition of malicious injuries. They should be given special status because of their work. I am thinking of community associations who raise funds to run services for the community in a voluntary way and who get nothing out of it.

In the debate on the Combat Poverty Bill, the Minister for Social Welfare said that it was very important to set up a body which would encourage voluntary organisations to develop self help in the community. However, the Minister for Justice said that he would withdraw support for these organisations although he knew that the effect would be to increase insurance costs for these bodies. Some of these organisations cannot get insurance except at a prohibitive rate and most of their funds are now going on insurance because of the level of crime and vandalism. This applies especially to cities like Dublin, Cork and Limerick where they cannot get cover. Surely the Government can find some way of continuing support for these people? I ask the Government and Deputies on that side of the House to consider the difficulties which these people are having and to introduce an amendment exempting them.

The amendments I put down deal with schools and educational establishments, sporting organisations and recreational facilities and community centres and charitable and voluntary bodies. All these people have put a great deal of effort into the community and indeed primary schools are now run by boards of management. However, these boards cannot afford even to heat the schools for the rest of the year. I do not know what it is like in Deputy Dowling's constituency but that is the way it is in Dublin because there have been so many cut-backs already. Of course Deputy Taylor is in favour of cutbacks, he calls them tax savings. At least in England Mrs. Thatcher calls them cutbacks——

Mr. Taylor

If Fianna Fáil were returned to power would they bring back this scheme?

Dr. Woods

Oh yes, we will look after the people. The Deputy need not worry about that. His cynical exercise in trying to extract that statement from me should be noted because the Labour Party have descended to those depths. They do not understand how to manage £10, let alone £1 million. They are on a downward spiral. I do not know if Deputy Taylor heard the Taoiseach answering a question today which confirmed that there is massive emigration. He should be addressing himself to that problem instead of making petty remarks. We accept that the Bill needs to be amended and on Second Stage I said that we were prepared to sit down with the Minister to sort out the problems. I ask the Minister to consider the exemption of these people and I put forward these amendments——

Mr. Taylor

They have been ruled out of order.

Dr. Woods

They have not all been ruled out of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are discussing section 2.

Mr. Taylor

What amendments are not ruled out of order?

Dr. Woods

The chair has ruled out amendments Nos. 1 to 7; amendments Nos. 8 and 9 have not been ruled out of order.

Mr. Taylor

I am glad that there are some left.

Dr. Woods

Amendment No. 10 has also been ruled out of order. I have to put down amendments to make my points. If the Minister feels so disposed she can take the amendment and put it through herself. The exercise is also important in any event to bring it to the attention of Labour Deputies in the House so that they understand clearly what is happening——

Mr. Taylor

We all know what is happening.

Dr. Woods

——and are not smothered by this general smokescreen so that sight is lost of the problem. These amendments are down for the record. I am purposely reading them into the record so that Deputy Taylor and his colleagues can go away and consider them. Amendment No. 4 is:

In page 3, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:

"(5) Subject to the provisions of this section, where damage the aggregate amount of which exceeds £100 is caused to any mechanically propelled vehicle, motor cycle or cycle, the person who suffers the damage shall be entitled to obtain compensation in accordance with the Malicious Injuries Acts 1981 and 1986.".

Here I mentioned damage to stolen cars and stolen bicycles. That is the business we are in nowadays. I would like to hear from the Minister the extent to which cars account for this money. Here again Dublin, Cork and Limerick are the main areas where this is happening. I have the figures for 1984 which might be helpful to the Minister. Perhaps she might try to get us some more figures for 1985 for tomorrow if she does not have them here tonight. The damage to cars and motor cycles in 1984 was 48.2 per cent, so it is very close to 50 per cent of the total damage. The poor motorists and motor cyclists will suffer an insurance increase as a result of the measures being put forward by Government. I have tried to ascertain the level of increase in insurance premiums for motorists and have been told that on comprehensive policies it will be about 5 per cent as a result of the abolition of the malicious injuries code and for third party, fire and theft policies the figure will be considerably more than that but I have no more detail. If the Minister has figures in relation to the expected increases which might have resulted from the discussions that the Minister presumably had with the motor industry about the impact on it of this measure we would be very interested to hear about it. The motorists are also taxpayers, probably some of the heaviest taxpayers in the country. The tax contribution from motorists is quite staggering and it is reasonable that they should expect that in relation to the stealing and damaging of their cars the State might be of some assistance to them. If this measure goes through they will be left to carry the can themselves. Here again Dublin, Cork and Limerick will carry the bulk of the burden, Dublin more than anywhere else. Deputy Dowling says that it is the responsibility of the communities to deal with vandalism and crime. That is a very naive statement but one can accept it coming from a Deputy who is not immersed in this crime and is living in a rural constituency. It is unrealistic to call on people in inner city areas to pay for this.

Mr. Dowling

I did not suggest that.

Dr. Woods

Saying that the responsibility is on the communities implies that it is up to them to get their house in order. They would be delighted if the Government provided the security and sufficient gardaí to get their house in order because they are afraid to go out on to the streets; they cannot leave their cars outside their houses or in their garages; they are putting up all sorts of protections which do not seem to be sufficient. Cars are still being stolen and damaged. While the level of crime and vandalism to cars and motor cycles is so high we should not remove the support. Why take away the prop that is there? Again I ask the Minister to look at that amendment in relation to cars and motor cycles.

The fifth amendment which I propose here relates to this section also. It is:

In page 3, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:

"(6) Subject to the provisions of this section, where damage the aggregate amount of which amount of which exceeds £100 is caused to any premises or property whose principal purpose is the storage of agricultural fodder, the person who suffers the damage shall be entitled to obtain compensation in accordance with the Malicious Injuries Acts 1981 and 1986."

The amendment concerns another area where the Minister could provide a remedy for the farming community in these circumstances. I note that the provisions in the Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 have been reduced but provision is made for agricultural people. Maybe Deputy Dowling would have a particular interest in this because it will very much affect his constituents. I appeal to him to take note of my amendment No. 5 and have a word with his own Minister to see if she or Minister Dukes would make some arrangements to deal with the rural population in this area because they are being excluded here now. The protection which they had under the 1981 Act is about to be removed. Even where schemes have been reduced in Northern Ireland they have maintained cover for the agricultural community. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it is necessary to remove this protection from the agricultural community. Section 2 of the Capital Grants to Industry (Amendment) Act, 1956, is as follows:

2. Where damage, the aggregate amount of which exceeds twenty pounds, has been maliciously or wantonly caused to——

(a) any building which is an agricultural building within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act (Northern Ireland), 1928; or

(b) any of the following kinds of property, found present or growing on, or unlawfully removed from any land which is agricultural land within the meaning of the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland), 1949, or found present in, or unlawfully removed from any building to which paragraph (a) applies, that is to say—

(i) any livestock.

I presume Deputy Dowling has seen some livestock around the country. That legislation includes:

(ii) any agricultural or dairy machinery and utensils, implements and utensils of husbandry, any harness, fuel oil or spirit, and any power or horsedrawn farm vehicles and trailers (including farm vehicles and trailors constructed or adapted for the conveyance of goods),

(iii) fruit trees or growing crops.

Where Thatcherite policies have applied elsewhere, they have still left the old agricultural——

Mr. Dowling

The Deputy should give up.

Dr. Woods

They appear to have a special concern for the agricultural community, even though they have removed malicious injuries compensation from all other areas.

Mr. Dowling

The Deputy is saying the self same thing. What is the case he is making? What amendments is he talking about? He spoke on Second Stage about what his amendments would be. Would he tell us what amendment he is talking about? He has gone against everything.

Dr. Woods

Not at all. I have merely proposed a list of amendments to section 2. We have other amendments to section 3.

Mr. Dowling

I can see that.

Dr. Woods

The Minister, of course, is entitled to accept all, or some, or none of these amendments but my duty on this side of the House is to point out the problems.

Mr. Dowling

Why put the amendments in at all?

Dr. Woods

It is my job to show the implications. The Minister would like to say that the Government want to push this legislation through, that they are in a hurry and do not want too much said about it, or too many questions asked. It is my duty to point out, for the benefit of Members on both sides of the House, but particularly on the Government side — in case the Minister would not explain fully to them — the implications of the changes for the farming community in this case. I put down amendment No. 5 specifically to show that while other jurisdictions have cut back in this area, they have not completely removed cover. I accept that the British Government have done and the Coalition Government are mad to follow the British Government in everything. Let them go ahead if that is what they wish, but let them not expect us to support them on that. Our intention is to make it clear that there is an option open to the Minister to exclude this area. Our amendment No. 6 is as follows:

In page 3, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:

"(7) (a) Where the applicant satisfies the Court that it would not be reasonable to expect the applicant to have insured against the damage, the person who suffers the damage shall be entitled to obtain compensation in accordance with the Malicious Insuries Acts 1981 and 1986.

(b) In determining what is reasonable for the purposes of this section, the Court shall have regard to:

(i) the means of the person who has suffered damage, and

(ii) the cost of obtaining insurance.".

Deputies might wonder what that is about, but there are centre city areas where it is not possible to get insurance cover any more. This amendment would cover those circumstances.

Amendment No. 7 states:

In page 3, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:

"(8) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Malicious Injuries Acts 1981 and 1986, a local authority shall be entitled to apply for compensation in accordance with this section.".

We discussed that amendment earlier. These are the amendments that we propose and it is up to the Minister to accept all, or some of them. We leave it to her to consider those proposals.

Mr. J. Leonard

The Minister said previously that amendment No. 7 would not be appropriate. In 1981 during the H-Block campaign a courthouse was burned and we have raised that issue by way of Parliamentary Question and debate to try to impress upon various Ministers for the Environment and for Justice the need to change the legislation.

We hope that the Minister will in this instance redress this imbalance and bring in legislation which will ensure that local authorities will be in the same position as any other body and can claim for such damage.

Mrs. Fennell

I replied earlier saying that it was inappropriate for this Bill. I am certainly not giving any undertaking about it but it would be a provision which would be more appropriate to be considered by the Departments of the Environment and of Finance.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 50.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barry, Myra.
• Begley, Michael.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Carey, Donal.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlon, John F.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam T.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crowley, Frank.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dowling, Dick.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Glenn, Alice.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kenny, Enda.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McLoughlin, Frank.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Molony, David.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, Willie.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Sullivan Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Prendergast, Frank.
• Ryan, John.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
• Skelly, Liam.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat Cope.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, William.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Edmond.
• O'Leary, John.
• Ormonde, Donal.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.

Question declared carried.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.