Amendment No. 8 is in the name of Deputy Woods. May I suggest that amendments Nos. 8 and 9 be discussed together?
Malicious Injuries (Amendment) Bill, 1986: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
NEW SECTION.
Yes. I move amendment No. 8:
In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
"3.—(a) There shall stand established a fund to be known as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund.
(b) The fund shall comprise monies contributed in such sums as shall be agreed between the Minister and any interested business or commercial parties.
(c) The Minister may by regulations provide for the payment of awards from the fund to interested businesses or commercial parties who would not otherwise be entitled to compensation under the Malicious Injuries Acts 1981 and 1986".
This is to put forward to the Government the concept of the establishment of a criminal injuries compensation fund. We know that certain businesses, particularly those in the inner city, have great difficulty in getting insurance cover and they also suffer greatly from crime and vandalism. The effect of the Minister's proposals in the Bill will be to leave those businesses at the mercy of the insurance industry. We know from experience that some of them cannot get insurance cover. I have spoken to members of the Garda Síochána and they tell me this will create a breeding ground for protection rackets. Many of the businesses will have to give up and move out because they will not be able to obtain insurance.
There is a special problem here. It is not a question of distributing the cost of insurance over the population nationally and saying that the impact will not be too great. The reality is that Dublin suffers more than most places because of insurance costs and this particularly affects small businesses. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Small Businesses considered the insurance problems of small firms and they saw the need to provide for instances such as those mentioned in our amendment. In their report they made the following comment:
We feel that the burden of Property insurance in high risk areas should be shared by the community as a whole, in conjunction with the insurance companies, with the ultimate objective of ensuring that business continues in these areas.
We see the right of businesses to Property insurance in these high risk areas as being just as important for urban renewal as the existing high levels of Local Authority expenditure on new housing in many of these areas and the urban renewal incentives announced by the Government on 23 October 1985.
They were deeply concerned about the problems facing businesses particularly in the inner city areas.
We reiterate the recommendation contained in our Second Report for a scheme which would be confined to designated high risk areas ... this recommendation would be implemented prior to the enactment of the Malicious Injuries Bill 1986.
They were aware that this Bill would soon be introduced and they could see the adverse effects it would have on businesses in centre city areas. Deputy Yates was chairman of this committee, Senator Lynch vice-chairman and the committee members were made up of Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil Deputies and Senators. They looked at this problem and found it was very serious. If this or any other committee looked at other facets of this Bill they would find that special problems are being created.
It is not enough to say the Minister for Justice will have discussions with another Minister and that something will come out of these discussions. That is not the way to proceed with this kind of legislation. The Minister should do his or her homework before he or she comes into this House and he or she should put before us the measures which will deal with the problem that will arise directly as a result of this legislation.
The Motor Insurers Bureau provide for cases where no motor insurance is provided. This is a very valuable administrative arrangement. In 1985 the bureau paid approximately £8.6 million in claims. This operation was set up by the industry, operates in conjunction with the Minister and provides a very important service. The bureau make payments having considered all the circumstances of each case, and they work out the practical difficulties which may arise when companies try to offload particular types of cases.
If we can have an operation like that for motor insurance, it should be possible to have a criminal injuries compensation fund. It is not only my view that difficulties will arise as a result of this legislation, but the Oireachtas joint committee have also said this. Deputies on both sides have highlighted the difficulties they see for businesses, especially small businesses, in the inner city areas of Dublin, Cork and Limerick. I agree that this matter will need detailed consideration and that the Minister will have to decide how this legislation will be implemented.
Under paragraph (c):
The Minister may by regulations provide for the payment of awards from the fund to interested businesses or commercial parties who would not otherwise be entitled to compensation...
The Minister will have to consider this matter if this Bill passes, but why not do it now before the Bill comes into law and before the compensation which is available at the moment is removed? For many people in the affected areas the only insurance they have at present is the malicious injuries compensation. If the Minister removes that, they are left without any form of compensation and they will have no alternative but to close their businesses.
Representations have been made about this matter from business people in the inner city in particular, but also from business people throughout the country because they envisage difficulties arising as a result of the passage of this Bill. There is panic in some areas about this, particularly in Dublin. In an article in The Irish Press, 18 March 1986, Tom Coffey of the Dublin City Centre Association took a realistic view and said that insurance companies could not bear continuing losses and claims without raising premiums and that the structural problems in the city would have to be tackled to combat crime and vandalism. He pointed out that last year the Dublin City Centre Business Association, whose members employ about 15,000 people, published a discussion document entitled “Towards a More Efficient Dublin” and called for more strategic management of the resources in the city, and in particular, tackling the crime and vandalism problem.
He went on to say insurance cover for small shops ranges from £600 to over £2,000 a year, depending on the location. Already there is a variation for small shops. He then said that if the premiums were considered high at that time they would rise dramatically when malicious damages were no longer paid for by the Exchequer. He said there was no indication given that council rates would fall but the insurance firms would have to make up the difference. This is a question the business people in the inner city have raised.
We learned last night that approximately £4 million is going from the local authorities. If that is not being charged will the rate of the business people particularly in these very hard pressed areas be reduced? Do the Minister or the Government intend just to take up and use for Exchequer purposes generally the savings which would accrue in that area? I ask the Minister of State when she is commenting to let us know the Government's view on that question as to whether the rates which will be alleviated to the extent of £4 million and which are levied mainly on these business premises will be reduced now as a result of that saving arising from the abolition of malicious injuries compensation. Do the Government intend to reduce the rates since this money is being contributed directly by the businesses involved who would like to know the Government's intentions in that respect? If it is intended to reduce the rates at least they will have some resource to meet the extra insurance charge which will arise and which they will have to pay if they can.
This very serious problem is one facet of the whole question of removing malicious injuries compensation. To deal with that we put down amendment No. 8 and we are proposing that the Government meet the business interests and the insurance interests involved in these areas particularly and consider the setting up of a fund such as we propose. It will be open to the Government to decide subsequently whether they want to contribute to the fund or whether the moneys which will be saved as a result of a reduction in rates could go into that fund. There is a starter, a straight switch of the £4 million which is being collected from the business community into such a fund. The Minister of State and her colleagues will have to decide on that. Our proposition here is to provide something on a parallel with the Motor Insurers' Bureau for businesses and industries, particularly in the inner city areas, and to some extent on the outer city fringes where special circumstances obtain. The insurance industry, the business interests and the Minister all are involved and have responsibility in this.
The Government's responsibility arises because of lack of control of crime and vandalism, and as long as crime and vandalism run at the present high level it will be necessary to have some means of dealing with the fall-out from that crime and vandalism. It seems obvious that if the Government want to apply the Garda resources to these areas to provide the safeguard and back-up required, that can be done. If it is done it will be effective because we have every confidence that the Garda, if given the opportunity and resources, can deal with the matter. However, the resources being applied to the special problem areas are not adequate to meet the problems in those areas, and as a result the businesses are not receiving the kind of protection they need. There is the special crime force of approximately 68 members who can be moved about the city on a flexible basis to give back-up where needed, but they are far too small as a support force for the number of instances of high crime and vandalism. If the Government were to increase that force they would probably prevent a great deal of vandalism. Therefore the Government have responsibility and an interest. It is not enough for them just to withdraw the moneys which they are placing into criminal injuries compensation and then take up the £4 million which is already being contributed by the businesses. I would like to hear what the Minister of State has to say about amendment No. 8 and particularly about the £4 million which is at present being collected through rates from the businesses and which could be available to use otherwise.
Before the Minister of State replies to Deputy Woods I would like to make a few brief comments on the section and on the amendment. I am sure that the Minister of State will agree that as this Bill and its sections are debated, as they have been last night and this morning, it is evident that the terms of the Bill are very far-reaching and will have a very great impact on individuals and property owners. I do not think that the people who drafted the Bill envisaged that it would or could have the effect which it will have if passed through the House in its present form. Deputy Woods last night and this morning has pointed out a number of major weaknesses in the Bill which will leave individuals and property owners extremely vulnerable to the many elements in society who are intent deliberately on damaging and destroying property. The Minister of State pointed out that the Bill made provision for the exclusion of damage caused by whom she identified last night as mainly subversive elements. I must say to her that other elements are operating in society——
We are dealing with amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
I agree, but nonetheless I must make the point that other elements are operating in society who will deliberately damage property and no protection is being provided for the citizen in the section in that regard. It is all very fine for the Minister to say that these people can protect their property through insurance, but surely she must know that, particularly in Dublin and urban areas, it is becoming extremely difficult in the first instance to get insurance. When you get the insurance it is even more difficult to meet the cost of the premiums. The inevitable result of increased insurance premiums arising from this proposal will be greater overheads in almost every area of operation. However, I am not so much concerned about that; I am concerned about the effects on the ordinary house-holder, the ordinary family who find it difficult, if not impossible, to provide insurance cover for their family home. It is quite possible that these homes will be the target at some stage for vandalism. Will we now abandon those people and tell them it is hard luck if their homes are damaged by vandals? We are now dismantling the only scheme available to compensate people in cases of that kind. Dr. Woods referred to the committee of the House which examined this aspect of insurance and came to the conclusion that society should share the cost of malicious damage to property. If we abolish this scheme, some alternative emergency fund such as that advocated by Dr. Woods should be seriously considered.
I feel sensitive about drawing Deputy Hyland's attention to the fact that Deputies should be referred to as Deputies. Standing Orders so provide.
My apologies. The suggestion put forward by Deputy Woods would at least be a compromise when the public are abandoned by the Government. It is extremely unfair to put any citizen at risk by doing away with this provision. The life savings and hard work of men and women have gone into providing a family home. Crime and vandalism are the products of our failure to deal effectively with economic and social reform and if we abandon our people in the sense that we have failed to provide jobs for them, will we also abandon them when their homes are damaged by vandals? The Minister should seriously consider introducing some form of compensation fund which would be a safeguard for those who cannot provide adequate insurance for damage done by vandals as a result of the breakdown in law and order.
I support the views of the previous speakers in relation to a criminal injuries compensation fund. Motorists are compensated as a result of a fund set up to cater for those who have suffered as a result of other motorists not having insurance. We have serious reservations about this Bill, which must be obvious to the Minister by now. There is very deep concern at the disregard for property. The Cavan-Monaghan constituency has suffered more than any other area, especially Monaghan, which has been affected so much as a result of the troubles in Northern Ireland. Many Government Deputies seem to make light of our case and do not seem to care about the problems in regard to compensation. The Minister should seriously consider this amendment because we have grave reservations in regard to the Bill.
I oppose this amendment because there is no question of there being a State subvention available for such a fund and, therefore, there is no reason for my Department or any other Department to have a role in administering a fund of this nature. The administrative resources necessary would not be available in my Department. If business or commercial parties are interested in setting up such a fund there is no reason for it not being administered by one of the existing trade associations. As to the detailed provisions of the amendment, I envisage difficulties in organising a fund where contributions are made on a voluntary basis and, again, I do not see any role for a Government Department in involving themselves and trying to secure agreement on the amount of such contributions.
The final paragraph of the Deputy's amendment is so widely framed that it could cover any kind of damage, even that covered by insurance. With regard to the obtaining of insurance, to which Deputy Woods referred, in this amendment the Deputy is attempting to deal with cases where businesses might have difficulty in obtaining insurance cover as a result of this Bill. As I said in my reply on Second Stage, we recognise the concern expressed by Deputies and I informed the House that the Minister for Justice would contact the Minister for Industry and Commerce about the matter. As a result, the Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce is taking up the matter with the insurance industry with a view to seeing if there is any way to help to alleviate any problems which may arise. As part of that consultation process, the Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce could raise the question of a fund of the type in question but, as I said, there would be no question of any State support. It would, however, be open to interested businesses to approach the insurance industry directly in the matter and this may be more appropriate.
Reference was also made to the Motor Insurers' Bureau but the major difference between motor insurance and property insurance is that there is a minimum insurance requirement in law for motor vehicles and there is no such requirement in regard to property. Therefore, one cannot draw a direct parallel with the Motor Insurers' Bureau.
Deputy Woods asked about the saving to local authorities. Of course, this will vary, but it will be a matter for local authorities to decide how they will use such savings which will accrue as a result of passing the Bill. With regard to Deputy Hyland's point, the Bill will have little or no effect on house insurance or on its availability.
The Minister in effect is saying that no provision has been made and that, although discussions may take place afterwards, no homework has been done in advance of this measure being passed. It is purely a sop to suggest that a Junior Minister at another Department will have a chat with somebody about the matter and that the Minister for Justice has no responsibility in this area. The responsibility which I see resting with the Minister for Justice in this area is that he is responsible for law and order, which has broken down in many areas. Businesses are suffering as a result and, therefore, the Minister is responsible. It is not sufficient for the Minister to cast aside these people and say that once he gets it out of this Act he has no responsibility any more and it is somebody else's worry. The Minister should be saying he is not prepared to do away with this malicious injuries code until other arrangements are made to deal with the victims of crime and vandalism. That is his responsibility if he is in any way concerned about the victims of crime.
It can be argued that a business which subscribes to an insurance company for many years and then has a major fire which, it transpires, is maliciously caused and where this only occurs every 20, 30 or 50 years, should be able to claim from an insurance company in any event. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about shops and businesses being repeatedly vandalised. One shop I know of was raided 13 times in the last three months and vandalised. How can normal insurance deal with that? It is not a normal situation and these people are in that position because of the breakdown of law and order because of the Minister's inability or unwillingness to tackle this basic problem.
This happens not only in the city centre but throughout the country. I have had letters from business people around the country who are worried about the impact of this on their business. One of the letters I received, dated 22 July 1985 attaches a copy of an endorsement which is being issued by insurance companies. It says that it looks as if our Government are considering doing away with this Act; that those who are pressing for doing away with the Malicious Damages Act on the basis that such claims should be met by the insurance companies are not conversant with the facts of life for insurance companies who have a right of selection; that as malicious damages claims are likely to occur he cannot see insurance companies renewing a policy following such claims. They were given a malicious damages endorsement applied on 16 July 1985 because of the Government's intention in this area. The endorsement states that if during the currency of this policy the right of the insured to compensation for malicious damage to property is removed or diminished as a result of the repeal or amendment of the Malicious Injuries Act, 1981, the company reserves the right to alter the scope and/or terms of cover provided by the policy with effect from the date of any such legislative change.
The Minister cannot come back afterwards and say these problems were only discovered after the Bill was debated in the Dáil. The Minister cannot say afterwards that I did not point out here in the House the problems the Government are creating for ordinary business people who are trying to make a living and cannot manage to do so because the Government will not put the resources into dealing with the question of law and order. The Minister cannot come back later and say nobody told them about this. There have been a whole series of submissions which I am sure the Minister has also received. Many articles have appeared in the newspapers reporting threats made to people in shops in Dublin. It is almost impossible to get insurance cover so that a very serious problem is expected to arise in the Dublin area in particular.
Amendment No. 9 is as follows:
In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
"4.—(a) Applications in accordance with the Acts shall be made to a tribunal which shall be known as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal.
(b) The Minister may by regulations provide for the constitution and procedures of the Tribunal.".
We are not trying to tie the Minister down to every detail here. The Minister said my provisions are too wide. But it is intended to give the Minister and nobody else power to act within that. In amendment No. 9 I am suggesting that we should have a tribunal known as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal. I ask the Minister to seriously consider this. I ask the Minister to include in that tribunal some of the areas I mentioned last night, for example, community centres, charitable organisations, primary schools which are suffering a great deal at the moment, and sporting organisation which may be designated by the Minister.
It is scandalous for the Government to remove the protection from those voluntary groups. I do not know where the Minister and the people on that side of the House live; who they talk to or who they are in contact with. The insurance for a simple community centre is now over £2,000 a year. For bigger centres it is a great deal more. What will happen to them when this Act is removed? They will not be able to pay this insurance, and these are all people who are putting their time and sweat and energy into combating crime and vandalism by providing other outlets for young people in the community. That applies to the sporting organisations, the community centres and so on. These are great people, marvellous citizens doing tremendous work voluntarily and giving of their own time in these areas. They will find it hard to continue in the business they are in, a totally constructive and helpful business for which they receive nothing but the satisfaction of helping young people.
I suggest there should be a criminal injuries compensation tribunal to take up some of these areas. The malicious injuries code could be amended and altered and filed down but certain items which deserve support should be continued under it. It could be taken away from the court process and personal criminal injuries could be tied in with that. This morning before I came here I met people, as I do each morning in the constituency, and one of those people was the parent of a 17-year-old doing his leaving certificate who was mugged in St. Anne's Park on the north side, going home innocently in the evening with a friend of his. They were set upon by five or six young men. He was beaten on the head with a metal object by one of the gang. The medical people thought the damage was not too serious at first, but he has been receiving treatment in the Richmond Hospital.
That is not relevant to the debate.
The damage to his spectacles, dentures and anything else of that kind would come under this legislation. I am sorry to disagree with the Chair on that, but that is the way the Act is.
The damage done would have to be over a certain value.
Damage to spectacles, dentures and any such items is covered. Since 1 April last, compensation for his pain and suffering will no longer be paid. I had to tell his parents that, if this attack had occured before 1 April, he would have been compensated for the pain and suffering, just as he would still be in the North of Ireland and England — but not under this Government now.
I am suggesting that the Minister should redraft the whole scheme, taking in personal injury compensation, criminal and malicious injuries and damage to property and having them dealt with under one tribunal. The Personal Injuries Compensation Tribunal has been very successful. It has worked very well and there are no legal expenses. The average cost is low. It deals with people who are mugged, as well as those whose property is damaged. The Minister should set up a criminal injuries compensation tribunal and let it deal with both aspects. If she does not do that, then on return to Government we will do it and rationalise the situation. We will compensate people for their pain and suffering. The treatment meted out to those who are the victims of crime is little short of scandalous.
I cannot understand how the Government can come to the House repeatedly with repressive measures, with the present high incidence of crime and vandalism. I come across such cases every day and have become incensed at the treatment which people are recieving from the Government. This Bill is a clear example of such treatment, both in relation to personal injuries and to damage to property. Personal property is, of course, included under the Malicious Injuries Act and it is proposed to wipe this out. I do not know if Deputies on the other side of the House fully realise what is happening in that respect. I object very strenuously to it.
If a person comes to the assistance of a member of the Garda Síochána in the case of a stolen car, there will be no malicious claim with regard to the car which may be damaged. The pain and suffering of the individual concerned will not be compensated, either. The Government's proposals here are entirely unsatisfactory. They are not appropriate to the age in which we are living. It is ridiculous for Deputies to refer back to legislation of 1836 as justification for action being taken in the present onslaught of crime. It shows how far removed the Government are from the reality of crime. The amendment of the Malicious Injuries Act is an unwarranted attack on the victims of crime. It is removing their twin props which are, compensation for pain, suffering and loss and loss of and damage to property.
In replying to amendment No. 9, I ask the Minister to give us some of the information which was not available last night and which she undertook to provide this morning.
What the Deputy seems to be suggesting in respect of amendment No. 9 is that a tribunal and not this House should decide who should be entitled to compensation. We could not agree to this. The actual wording of the amendment would not allow this, in any event. The phrase "in accordance with the Acts" means that the Act would determine who is entitled to compensation and the tribunal would have no discretion. The only effect of the amendment would be to transfer responsibility for administering the malicious injuries scheme from local authorities and the court to a criminal injuries compensation tribunal to be established.
As was stated in the introductory remarks on the Second Stage debate on the Bill, the question of transferring the whole burden of administering the scheme to a central authority was debated at some length during the passage of the 1981 Act through the Oireachtas. Valid arguments were presented both for and against local authority involvement. These arguments crossed party lines. The Government favour the continued involvement of local authorities for very much the same reasons as were advanced in favour of such involvement during the debates on the 1981 Act. The involvement of local authorities means that the services of their professional and other staff can be used at minimal cost in processing malicious injuries claims on the spot.
What claims? There will not be any claims after this. There may be one in every five years.
The claims that will qualify under the new legislation.
There will not be any to qualify.
The services of professional and other staff will be at a minimal cost, rather than having the expense of a new structure. On the other hand, to transfer the responsibility to a tribunal would necessitate the setting up of a new and expensive organisation with legal and other specialist staff which would greatly increase the cost of the scheme, while the removal of the responsibility from local authorities in respect of the very restricted scheme now proposed would hardly effect significant savings to them. I oppose this amendment.
With regard to the Deputy's request for information which I gave a commitment last evening to supply, he sought figures for compensation paid out under the malicious injuries scheme in Dublin, Cork and Limerick. I gave the figures for the Dublin city and county areas. I shall repeat the figures for those areas now. I have the figures for the years 1980 to 1984, inclusive. They are: 1980, £4,329,539, or 70 per cent of the total; for 1981, £5,086,388, or 60 per cent of the total; for 1982, £5,425,364, or 54 per cent of the total; for 1983, £8,910,450, or 65 per cent of the total; for 1984, £9,572,322, or 55 per cent of the total. I have not got the 1985 figure.
Is that for Dublin city?
It is Dublin city and county combined. The figures for Cork for 1980 are £148,412 or 2.4 per cent of the total; for 1981, £562,162 or 6.6 per cent of the total; for 1982, £605,845 or 6 per cent of the total; for 1983, £631,032 or 4.6 per cent of the total and for 1984, £1,963,635 or 11 per cent of the total. The figures for Limerick for 1980 are £120,586 or 2 per cent of the total; for 1981, £63,825 or less than 1 per cent of the total; for 1982, £217,333 or 2 per cent of the total; for 1983, £216,143 or 1.6 per cent of the total and for 1984, £294,920 or 2 per cent of the total.
Is the Minister sure that the Dublin figures are not just for Dublin city?
The figures I have given are for Dublin city and county. I have figures for 1985; I do not think I gave the Deputy those. There was a bit of confusion last night about them. The figure for 1985 for Dublin city and county is £12,386,513 or 62 per cent of the total. For 1985 for Limerick the figure is £844,000 or 4 per cent of the total.
The figure for Dublin city and county for 1985 was £12.6 million?
£12,386,000 or 62 per cent of the total.
I also asked the Minister if she has any idea in relation to the breakdown for the different areas in Dublin. Has she the amount that was spent on schools?
No, we do not have a breakdown for the postal areas that the Deputy referred to last night. The local authorities do not have a separate estimate for the schools. The schools are not a separate sector.
There is just a block figure. The local authorities have that information. It does not matter that we do not have it for this debate because I have a copy of the figures for 1984 for each postal district in Dublin. This information was given by the local authority on 7 October 1985. They seem to be able to break it down. They said at that stage that the malicious injury damage to cars and motor cycles was 48.2 per cent of the total expenditure.
Was that a sample survey?
Yes, it was a survey of 500 claims in relation to the postal districts.
The Minister referred to the transfer to the criminal injuries compensation. It would not necessarily involve this transfer. I know that the Minister has to say something against it. It does not necessarily mean an administrative transfer of the whole system. It is very amusing that after this Bill is passed there will not be anything to worry about in terms of transfer. There may be some residual cases to be dealt with but there will be very few new cases. If we do not have any bombs and explosions by subversive organisations there will not be anything left. I do not think the administration will be a burden on anyone in the future because there will not be anything to administer.
In relation to the procedure, if there is to be a criminal injuries compensation tribunal then the normal administration of the collection or gathering of information could process through the local authorities. There will be a decision in relation to the operation of the scheme and the criminal injuries tribunal for compensation for criminal injuries personally inflicted. That tribunal works very efficiently. As the Minister knows, the cases are dealt with very speedily and effectively by that tribunal. If there was a modified scheme — I am not talking about a wiped out scheme such as the one we have here because there would be nothing much left to administer after this Bill goes through — then I believe there would be scope for a tribunal to decide on these matters.
Amendment No. 9 (b) states that the Minister may by regulation provide for the constitution and procedures of the tribunal. That leaves to another day the preparation of the regulations which would apply to this tribunal. If we could get the Government to agree today that there should be a tribunal which would deal with these matters and that there are some aspects of this scheme which are worthy of being continued, then we would feel that we had done a service to the community. The Minister said that there would be very little left after the passing of the Act, and I agree with her. I am suggesting that the way to go about it is to modify it, to amend it, to change it and to reduce the expenditure where this is possible, but to leave a scheme that meets the requirements of those who need it most and those who are the most hard hit victims of crime and vandalism which we experience today. It is for that reason that I proposed that there should be a tribunal.
The Minister does not seem to be disposed towards accepting this concept. I can understand that. I appreciate the Minister's position. The Minister is here under particular riding instructions. She has been told by the Minister for Justice and the Government to push this thing through and to have done with it. The Government have decided to wash their hands of the victims of crime by virtually abolishing the compensation scheme. The Minister for Justice told us that the purpose of the Bill is to reduce the impact on the Exchequer. I appreciate the Minister's position and, of course, he is not disposed to make any compromise in the circumstances. The step being taken here is a very uncompromising hard faced act by the Government, pulling the prop from under the victims of crime in the same way as they did in cases of personal injury.
The local authorities will be the organisations who will pass on claims to the tribunal for decision. At the moment the tribunal dealing with personal injuries are very efficient. Can the Minister tell us what her estimate is of the administrative cost of the scheme — the cost to the local authorities?
I have not got that figure.
That reply highlights what I have been talking about. We do not know what we are talking about because the costs have not been quantified. We do not have even an estimate, and this points to the fact that the Government simply decided to do away with compensation for the victims of crime. They do not even want to spend too much time considering what the cost is. It is obvious that the Government have not considered the cost of administration.
The Minister made a big point that the scheme will be administered by the local authorities. When I ask a simple question I am told the Government have not even considered the matter. They say: "We will give you an odd sop, and please do not annoy us". The Labour Party are trotting along blindly behind the Government. I warn them that the fall-out will be considerable and serious. What does the Minister think would happen if there was a referendum on this subject? How would the people vote? Are we not lucky to have a Constitution to protect the people? However, we are doing away with juries in civil cases because there is no constitutional safeguard to them as there is in the case of juries in criminal cases. There is no constitutional protection for the victim of crime.
I will be putting this amendment to the House as a gesture to show that there are alternatives to this Bill. The victims of crime will suffer. This morning I spoke to the parents of a young man who is in the Richmond Hospital as a result of injuries received. I told them that from 1 April the son will not get compensated for his pain and suffering because the Government wiped out the scheme of compensation. In future I will have to tell people that any damage to their property will not be compensated for by the Government.
The week before last I met a man who had suffered injuries while helping the Garda to arrest two car thieves. A car theft was reported and the Garda gave chase. The stolen car was damaged and in the process two other cars were damaged. One of the thieves was aged 19 and the other was 16 years of age. A CIE bus driver on his way home tackled the bigger one — the two boys had left the car when it crashed. The bus driver hurt his shoulder while helping the Garda who then got out of their car and apprehended the two people. That man has to try to drive a bus but he will not get compensation for his pain and suffering because the scheme was done away with on 1 April. If any of his personal belongings were damaged while he was tackling the car thief he will not get compensation. These are the things the Government are doing. Incidents like I have just referred to should be a warning to the victims of crime. They should be a warning to Labour Deputies who, I am sure, have people calling to their doors every week. The props are being pulled from under the victims of crime.
I met the people who are running the victims' support groups and they are very worried. What will they tell victims of crime in future? They meet many victims and they should be able to tell those victims that the State will look after them and help them. They should be able to tell them to go to the Criminal Injuries Tribunal. All that they can tell them now is that they will receive no compensation. Those groups are finding this difficult and embarrassing. In Northern Ireland and Britain if a person receives personal injuries the State steps in and gives support. As well, the State is there to see that people will be looked after if their property is damaged.
All I can do is to warn the Government about the realities. There is a way to deal with these problems and make savings but not to the extent to which the Government want to make them. These savings could be made by following the lines we have suggested in the proposals we made both last night and this morning. There should be a criminal injuries compensation tribunal which will in a bona fide way compensate for real losses and ensure that people are compensated both for personal injuries and for damage to their property or belongings.
That is what I am suggesting the Government should do. We will do so if the Government do not. There has to be a statutory system to deal with the question of support to victims of crime. If the previous scheme had been a statutory one, the Government could not have wiped it out at the stroke of a pen on 1 April. Because it was not statutory this mean and uncaring Government, after blindfolding their backbenchers, made a change from 1 April. That will come home to roost. More and more people will find the Government do not care for them when they are victims of crime. They will come along to their Deputies and to the tribunal and ask what is wrong and that there does not seem to be anything for them. People will have to say to them the Government are not interested and have closed down this scheme. They have done away with compensation for pain and suffering. That has many implications. In some cases the physical damage to a person may be small and the damage in terms of property may be small but the real damage is the trauma which arises from rape and mugging. It is principally their loss of security. Their traumas and fears become very real after the experiences of crime and mugging.
Previous Governments used to say that they were concerned and would compensate, even in some small way. There were modest compensations. Average compensation was £4,500. There was nothing wild about that. Even those pursuing Thatcherite policies could not regard that as being very big. The trouble was that there were too many of them. Too many of these ordinary, common citizens were coming along with this type of problem. We had to stop them. The problem was not the size of the individual claim, it was not even the legal expenses, it was just that there were too many citizens coming along. They were a nuisance and a drain on the Exchequer. The solution for too many victims was to pull away the compensation which they had.
The Minister in his Second Stage speech said that the involvement of local authorities means that the services of their professional and other staff can be used at a minimal cost in processing malicious injuries claims. I would like to ask the Minister of State if discussions have taken place with local authorities regarding how this scheme will be administered and operated in the future. How will the county council staff and the Garda, who will have to be brought in on a number of cases, be compensated? Also on Second Stage I drew attention to an anomaly which exists in the present Act. We had a situation in County Monaghan where the Garda superintendent refused to certify a claim which was attributable to the troubles in Northern Ireland. As a result, there was an award for £300,000 for a private house. While the council were reimbursed to the tune of £230,000, it meant a loss of £70,000. When the Garda superintendent refused, the county council had no forum of appeal against his decision, not even to the Ombudsman. This is an area which should be examined, because in all cases there is a form of appeal. In that instance the local authority had no form of appeal. As a result, it cost them a substantial amount of money which they did not have. This should be examined closely.
I would like to remind the House that in his Second Stage speech the Minister indicated that no amendments would be considered or accepted which would involve a cost factor. This is a cost saving measure. It seems extraordinary that Deputy Woods can talk about savings. He spent last night and this morning introducing and suggesting numerous cost factors or measures which would increase spending.
Not against the status quo.
The Deputy's amendment No. 9, in which he suggested the setting up of another organisation, is nonsense. The work of the local authority in terms of administering the scheme is at a minimal cost with the exception of Dublin. I did not answer the Deputy on that, but it is a minimal cost. It is there and it is professional people who deal with claims. It is nonsense on the Deputy's part to talk about setting up a separate tribunal. In today's terms there would be very expensive costs involved.
Deputy Leonard also asked about providing some appeals mechanism if a certificate is refused by a chief superintendent. The example he quoted was in relation to a non-statutory scheme under which the Government reimburse local authorities the full cost of compensation awarded against them for damage caused by the use of explosives relating to disturbances in Northern Ireland. Under the new scheme the full costs of all awards will be met by the Exchequer. That scheme will terminate once the Bill comes into effect. There would then be a statutory scheme in its place. A question on 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 the 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 the need for any further appeals mechanism.
Question put: "That the new section be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- 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.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barry, Myra.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett(Dublin North-West); Níl, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor.
Amendment declared lost.
As it is now past 12.30 p.m. I must put the following question, in accordance with the order of the House made this morning: "Malicious Injuries (Amendment) Bill, 1986. That the Bill is hereby agreed to in Committee and is reported to the House, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 57.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barry, Myra.
- Begley, Michael
- Bell, Michael.
- Birmingham, Joe.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moloney, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- 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.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- 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.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett(Dublin North-West).
Question declared carried.