Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Jun 1986

Vol. 367 No. 10

Malicious Injuries (Amendment) Bill, 1986: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. B. Ahern

Before lunch I was talking about schools in the inner city. I gave one example and I could give many more in relation to claims under the malicious injuries code. However, the Minister seems to have ignored these claims and the areas from which most of them come. He said that insurance companies would take up the losses in regard to these organisations.

This Bill is bad legislation and goes against the line which the Government took in regard to other matters in the inner city. During lunch hour I checked with two major insurance companies regarding these areas. It is clear that claims have multiplied out of all proportion and that the insurance companies will now not cover them. I asked an insurance company just down the road about their policy in relation to business firms. In the past they asked firms to provide burglar alarms and various other devices which would help to combat crime, but the various security systems installed did not provide much protection.

I can never understand why insurance is so expensive but the companies who provide it are commercial organisations and one must agree with the Minister when he said that they cannot be compelled to underwrite claims. However, they are allowed to operate in very favourable circumstances and if they are not interested in providing cover for companies, perhaps companies outside the State would be interested in coming in here. Perhaps the State should consider moving its insurance and the same could apply to health boards who have massive policies although they do not claim against them very often.

It is wrong to penalise people whose business premises are in areas which have a high crime rate. People get very upset about this and I have seen letters of complaint in that regard to my colleague, Deputy Flynn. I know there are difficulties in regard to insuring companies in certain areas but, as I said, they operate under favourable conditions. It is like CIE saying they should not run a bus to a certain area because it does not make money.

I do not know enough about insurance companies to know how they operate but I know that they are given large amounts by the State. One must also remember that many areas carry no risks, and they cannot have it both ways. It would be helpful if the Government clarified the strong line the Minister is taking by introducing limitations such as only allowing claims in the case of riots. What the Minister is doing will preclude almost all malicious injury claims and will defeat totally what we are trying to do to revive the inner city of Dublin. It will force more industry out of the inner city and make it more difficult to let or purchase properties. I am sure this applies equally to Limerick and Cork. I can see an argument for doing without the malicious injuries system some time in the future when law and order has been restored to some extent. But we cannot do without it at the moment. The State are prepared to pay massive sums of money by way of incentive to bring industry into the inner city but, on the other hand, they are forcing them out by the introduction of this legislation. It is a retrograde step and is the result of cut-backs.

The Government should be concerned about controlling crime. We have had debates about Garda overtime and about law and order. I do not want to run down parts of my own constituency, but no one has to go too far or check with too many gardaí to find out about the crime rates in the city. Only last weekend, when many Members of this House were at the Mass for the nuns from the Loreto Convent, St. Stephen's Green, streets of cars were broken into. What would those people do if they could not claim malicious damages from the corporation? Where would they insure themselves against that? What about people whose cars are burnt out, although this is not happening as frequently? I spoke to a businessman the other day who spent £5,000 erecting steel doors at premises in the Ballybough area; the premises were burnt out and he is now going to vacate the premises; he had no insurance on it anyway, since the money was put into security. This is not an isolated incident. I am not scaremongering, but the inner city attracts less notice from the public because, unfortunately, there comes a time when people just get used to all this. But the Government and the Garda know the problem exists.

I honestly believe that this is one of the worst, most thoughtless and heartless measures brought in by the Government. That is saying a lot because this Government have been a disaster from start to finish. I say, carefully and advisedly, that this is one of the worst measures ever brought before the House. The reason there are no protests or private Notice Questions and nobody marching on the gates is that most of the people who claim under the malicious injury code are the defenceless people in the community, people who are not in a position to speak up against crime, who can identify the vandals in their own areas who have them practically jailed in their own homes.

If we were docking money from the insurance industry or some other section, we would see a lobby here today, and the vested interests and the legal people who argue one way would be arguing the other very quickly as they have done several times in the past. This is hitting at the people who have nobody to speak up for them, people living in small, old houses, 150 years old, who have very poor facilities but are still attacked and are still vulnerable and their property regularly smashed and broken into. Even if they could get an insurance quotation they could not pay the premium.

The new IDA centre in Gardiner Street is welcome but there are difficulties with insurance. The IDA, having checked out the security firms that serve the inner city and checked out the insurance costs found out that it would cost an absolute fortune to insure the premises and very wisely came back to the local community, to the flat blocks, and got them to put together a security operation with the help and assistance of the IDA. This is very commendable. I am glad that the IDA took that step. This is in a new building that is in a fairly secure space with large fencing around it and massive lighting. They could get insurance because the IDA cannot be refused, but it would be at an astronomical cost. The problem exists everywhere. It is terrible to have to come in here and argue the obvious. The Minister is a very cool, cold customer but perhaps he will be advised by his officials how people feel about this. Perhaps if he will not just drop the thing altogether, which is what I would like to see him doing, he will bring it forward to a more suitable time. Perhaps he would introduce an alternative system to cover areas that cannot get insurance, and there are such areas.

I do not want to hear the Minister say that he does not know these areas and that we should check with the Department of Industry and Commerce or some other Department. That sort of answer is not helpful. Detailed information was given by our spokeman on Justice today and I made my few remarks about the inner city. If the Minister ignores this I will come back on Committee Stage and read out all the letters from the various companies. I say this now because the Minister tends to pass these things off without any thought and to act as if nobody knows anything except him. I hope it will not be necessary. I received a letter a few days ago from a very famous school, St. Laurence O'Toole's, called after the patron saint of the city. It could have been any other school of about 15 in the inner city where the Minister could call in and meet the inner city's school committee or the diocesan committee for the inner city, or the centre city traders, or the Dublin Chamber of Commerce or the Dublin Port and Docks Board or any of the residents' organisations in the city and they would all say the same thing. It is on these grounds that I ask the Minister to drop this Bill indefinitely until the crime position in the inner city improves. Something must be done about crime because the city cannot afford to lose the money which is paid on malicious injury claims and which is not easily got. Alternatively I ask him to extend the exemptions. If he does that I will to be the first to congratulate him. If not I will be back on Committee Stage to pursue it further.

Mr. Durkan

One must look at the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. Those of us who have been members of local authorities for a number of years will have noted the increased incidence of claims under the Act which have been seriously damaging to the finances of every local authority. The fact that claims have increased from £3.5 million in 1979 to a total of £20 million in 1985 is some indication of the way crime has increased. Something obviously has got to be done about this matter. This puts it in context.

Year after year the local authorities have seen massive increases in the number of claims lodged against them. They know the amount of money they have to work on themselves. They know the limitations and find themselves in an ever decreasing circle with little or no fund raising capabilities. At the same time here is one area in which costs seem to be rising out of all proportion and over which they have little or no control.

The combined total of claims against the State and the local authorities in 1985 was somewhere in the region of £20 million. It will probably be more this year and yet more next year. I shall deal briefly with what has led to that situation. Deputy Ahern spoke at some considerable length on this topic and I find myself agreeing with many of the sentiments he expressed. However, I disagree with him on the manner in which we should be dealing with the matter. There is obviously a serious crime rate which seems to be escalating. A serious disregard for other people's rights and property is generally prevalent in our society. How can we resolve that problem?

At this stage we should consider whether inadeqate policing is the only cause of the problem. I believe that if there were gardaí on the beat in every street in this city and in every provincial town, shoulder to shoulder, 24 hours a day, it would not solve the problem. That is simply because endemic in society at present is a total unwillingness to become involved on the part of the public in general. I give an instance. Two years ago in broad daylight my wife had stopped the car at traffic lights in this city and the windscreen was broken, her handbag stolen and serious injuries were caused to her. Large numbers of motorists were passing by on both sides and not one cared, not one person intervened. Why should we think that by placing extra gardaí on patrol the situation would change? If the people with whom we live are not sufficiently conscious of what is happening around them to take even a passing interest in what a few years ago was a serious crime but which has now become quite commonplace, we shall have to take a very long and hard look at where we are going. The same contempt that society has for the rights of people and property around them will be shown for the Garda and all the institutions that go with the State. Unfortunately, that has been proved to be the case over the years.

Another contributory factor to escalating costs is the cop out of the insurance companies. I do not want the insurance companies to get out of their responsibilities, not by a long shot. Local authorities have experienced that virtually every claim at one stage or other is pursued under malicious injuries legislation. It is a safety factor and a release valve for all insurance companies. Once there is a possibility that they might succeed in a malicious injuries claim they will further it. In the last four years for which we have statistics a subsidy of £20 million was paid to the insurance companies under this legislation, whether we like it or not.

I am very critical of the insurance companies in this regard. Deputy Ahern mentioned case histories. I saw in recent years what again appears to be a typical cop out by an insurance company. A person was building his own house with the help of an SDA loan on condition that two insurance policies had to be obtained, one while the house was under construction and the other when it was complete. The house was still under construction when an electric storm occurred in which it was severely damaged. When the person involved put in a claim, he was told that the policy did not cover him. On issuing that policy, the insurance company never said that he would not be protected against the weather. They then told him they would consider the matter and when representations were made to them they said that a solicitor was acting on behalf of the individual and that they would consider it inappropriate to comment further until the case was decided. They did not consider it inappropriate to take client's money in the first instance, allegedly to give insurance cover while he was building his house. That is only one of the many instances that I have come across. The insurance companies, because of their unwillingness or inability to meet their commitments, in many cases hive off their responsibilities on somebody else, and where better than on to the State and the taxpayer?

That is one example of the way in which insurance companies operate that I have become aware of in my time in public life. The area connected with this legislation is also one in which insurance companies have evaded their responsibilities with good effect. The difference is that up to the present the cost to the State was such that it did not seem worth while creating any great furore about it. However, the crime rate is increasing and costs are escalating each year, so somebody has had to say that it is time it stopped. The Bill attempts, whether successfully or not remains to be seen, to transfer the responsibility from local authorities and the State to the insurance companies. Now the situation is that insurance companies refuse to give cover in certain instances. Of course there are two sides to that story. It has become obvious that, when insurance companies have refused to give insurance cover in specific areas of the city or the country, that is an open invitation to the criminal element to see those areas as having an open season. There is no question about that. In both rural and urban areas where local concerned citizens have set up a community watch or a neighbourhood watch, which has proved successful, helpful and constructive, that has been also helpful to the criminal element in that they can identify an area which is so protected, without doing any research whatsoever. Hence the spate of incidents in unprotected areas.

If, for starters, the cavalier attitude of some of the insurance companies could have been got rid of, this Bill would not have had to be considered. However, since it is before us I must say that I have reservations about its effectiveness, particularly if, as Deputy Ahern and other speakers mentioned, a number of insurance companies may opt out further and leave some business areas right across the country without insurance cover. That would result in businesses not being able to continue in those areas. That situation would have to be looked at carefully. Perhaps on Committee Stage it might be possible to consider some modifications which might have the effect at least of ensuring that if one type of cover was not available, another would be. The Bill relieves the State and the local authorities of their responsibilities but does not indemnify the individual who may need protection and was given that protection under existing legislation up to the present time.

One can see no reason for an immediate change in the crime rate. Despite what I heard from some speakers on the opposite side of the House, I do not accept that it will be changed overnight by increased expenditure or increased patrolling by gardaí. If that is the case I am quite sure that other countries throughout the world, where the crime rate has been increasing steadily for years and where the resources are available, would have identified the problem and would have dealt with it long ago, but they have not. It relates back to our whole attitude to life and the way our society deals with the problem of property and rights other than their own.

I could go into the reasons for the high crime rates. I would digress far beyond the realms of this Bill, but I do not propose to so do. Very often criminals get inspiration from what their counterparts achieved or destroyed in various corners of the world. They see what is happening on video films and in the news generally. They seem to be able to extemporise further on it to great effect and with new twists on every occasion to such an extent that we now have some of the most professional criminals in the world.

We spent a long time dealing with the Criminal Justice Bill a couple of years ago. Very often the cause of claims for malicious damage is because of the inability to identify the criminal concerned. In some cases the criminal could be identified but, for one reason or another, was not. It was easier to lodge a claim under this heading and to get compensation in the normal way from the State or from the local authority rather than to go through the performance of hunting down the culprit and ensuring that he pay the price. As mentioned by Deputy Woods, perhaps criminals feel that they will not have to face retribution for their acts and that as a result it is quite all right to continue. I always felt that one of the main reasons for such a high crime rate was that so few criminals, when identified and brought to justice, suffer any great degree of incarceration, deprivation of rights or any great cost in terms of fines. Once that becomes acceptable, the deterrent is not here. Equally obviously, the would-be criminal will continue on the lucrative path which he has chosen.

As a member of a local authority I understand the reasons for the introduction of the Bill. It is quite simple. It is because of the vast increase in the cost of meeting claims. It has become normal practice to lodge a claim immediately after a damage which comes under this heading occurs. Five or ten years ago one was discouraged from lodging a claim, for instance, in relation to damage to one's car when parked in the city overnight. I remember reporting a similar incident to the Garda and being told that I should not pursue it because it could take a long time and it would not be worth it. I did not pursue it, but many people do. The attitude of the public has changed and I can fully understand it. They pay high motor taxes and high taxes in general. They feel at risk in society. When they are offended by some of the people in that society and damage is caused to their property they automatically seek retribution, which is their right.

If this Bill is passed in its present form it could result in allowing a situation to develop whereby a gap would be formed between the areas covered heretofore under this Act and those areas which would and could be covered by insurance companies. We always heard that if we did not have juries in civil actions, claims would not be so high and as a result insurance premiums generally would be much lower. When it became obvious that there might be a change in legislation, for some unknown reason the insurance companies took a different attitude. They are now considering that there might be no change in the level of insurance premiums, that they might be the same or even higher. This is just a passing reference. I mention it as an example of the peculiar attitude of some insurance companies. They were quite prepared to say what the causes were when they thought that there was no possibility of legislation being introduced to remove the difficulties as they saw them. Once legislation was introduced they saw other difficulties.

All insurance companies have indicated the difficulties that will arise as a result of the introduction of this Bill. The main difficulty, as they see it, will be that it will be impossible for them, as it is at present, to give insurance cover in certain circumstances. They are in the business of providing insurance cover. Amazingly, we always hear about the great losses which they suffer. We never hear about the great profits which they make, particularly the life assurance companies. They are very reluctant to set the profits in one of the more lucrative areas against their so-called losses in the high risk areas.

In regard to what Deputy Ahern said, in issuing licences or whatever other controls exist in relation to insurance companies, very serious notice should be taken as to whether or not they are at present doing the job for which they were set up or for which the policyholder pays them and whether or not the policyholder understands, when he or she takes out a policy, if they are covered for the reasons they think they are covered. That relates back to the case which I mentioned about the unfortunate person building his house.

What annoyed me most about the case was the fact that they deemed it fit not to comment as the matter was being pursued by way of litigation. There was no question about other people similarly insured at the same time who could have fallen into the same trap and been left in the same circumstances having to pursue it through the courts. There should be no necessity for that. It should be clear cut from day one. Either the policy covers the person or it does not. In this case one would assume that a house under construction was likely to suffer more from the weather or vandalism than anything else. It is obvious that that area should be covered, but it was not. There should be no quesstion about it. The case should have been clear cut. There should have been no need for litigation or for a solicitor to become involved. It should have been quite simple for the insurance company to write back to the customer from whom they had taken money and say: "Yes we believe you have cover and we will pay." I am quite sure that any assessor using his or her intelligence must recognise that the guy scarcely went out to destroy his own house in the middle of a thunder storm. I am sorry for going off on a tangent but it comes very readily to mind as I dealt with it only recently.

My final example is the famous one of where a car is stolen. That car, for one reason or another, crashes into another and kills or injures some of the passengers.

Again, I am speaking about a particular case I dealt with on behalf of a constituent. A young man was out driving his father's car. He was insured to drive it. Unfortunately, while driving slowly along a country road, he was overtaken by a stolen car in which there were three young men. His father's car was destroyed. He suffered a broken arm, leg and ribs. He spent six months in hospital and received no compensation from any quarter other than sick benefit. The case was referred to various places, the visiting motorists' bureau, the criminal injuries compensation board, etc. In the final analysis it was decreed that because there was no malicious intent — the culprits were not caught — and malice could not be proven, he had no case. Since he was driving a car which was insured he should have been insured at that time, particularly since he was not the person at fault, and also since the other car was stolen. In the normal course of events he should have come under the protection of the Malicious Injuries Act which is now being amended.

Those points do not represent a grudge against insurance companies but a long series of experiences which, not I, but my constituents have had. With a little more compassion and a broader interpretation of the legislation, the consequences for my unfortunate constituents could have been averted. I hope the Bill can be modified on Committee Stage if we are to ensure that we do not have the kind of situations a number of Deputies have spoken about, namely, where cover does not exist in one quarter or another, where we have a continued disregard for human life and property and where innocent citizens may find themselves suffering considerable costs as a result of the non-availability of this protection.

Mr. Briscoe

The old saying, "those whom the Gods seek to destroy, they first make mad" seems to be true in relation to this legislation. I am appalled that the Government are introducing it. I think it is disastrous. The people and the media are not aware of what this Bill means. It will have a most devastating effect on our society. I intend to go into the various reasons why I believe this.

I am appalled. This is a most dreadful Bill. I can hardly find the words to express my indignation. I hope to God that this House will come to its senses before this Bill is enacted when people begin to realise its implications. What will be the effect on people whose cars are stolen and burned out? They will have no claim against anybody. I do not know how many people in this House have tried to get fire and theft insurance but it is very difficult to get it. It is a very hefty sum of money on top of your regular insurance which is already high enough. I accept that one in five motorists driving around are not insured. That figure will increase very substantially because this will be the straw that breaks that camel's back.

I do not know the present cost of fire and theft insurance, but it is very substantial, if people can get it for starters. It is hitting those on the lowest level of income and those with middle incomes who are paying all their taxes and trying to educate their families. If a man comes home one day and says to his wife that his car has been stolen and the next day it is down by the canal burned out, what recourse has he, particularly if it was a choice between taking a chance and not insuring it for fire and theft and being able to pay to have it insured just to drive it? I am talking about third party. I am not talking about fully comprehensive.

There is an air of unreality at present. Maybe I am over-reacting, but that is the way I see it. What about people who cannot afford to insure their property and the contents of their houses? People now just take an axe and they burst down a door in a couple of minutes. They go in and rob what they can. What about their victims? What are they to do? I have said before in debates on crime and vandalism in this House that 70 per cent of my constituents in Crumlin alone have been robbed not once but twice in many instances. Many people cannot afford to insure the contents of their houses. As has been stated by many other speakers in this debate, there are insurance companies which will not insure certain areas. If you put in enough claims against an insurance company as a result of your house having been broken into, they will refuse to insure you. What does that person do? Does he just lie down and die? There is a refusal to insure shops.

Do we realise fully the implications of the provisions of this Bill? This may sound dramatic, but that is not intended; I am just painting the picture as I see it. Extortion will increase, the protection rackets will increase, as will the new godfathers of crime. They will approach people and say: "Look, we will protect your property." They will then let it be known that they are protecting property in certain areas of Dublin and that, if people pay them protection money, they will ensure that that property is free from damage. The word will go out about what will happen to anybody who lays a hand on that property. We know there is such a grapevine in existence around our city at present, that this extortion does happen.

Take the example of shops and stores who have to compete in the trade. There is no doubt that they will be asked to pay very substantially increased premiums. I have some figures here for the cost of insurance for a national school. It is calculated that the insurance premium on a national school will shoot up by 40 per cent. I do not understand this, but the figure I have is that the cost of insurance for secondary schools will increase by 30 per cent. We are all aware of the difficulties being experienced by schools and their boards of management in order to meet maintenance expenses. They hold fund-raising events to meet the cost of painting the school. Schools are being broken into constantly. For example, down in Basin Lane there is a Christian Brothers' primary school which has been broken into on quite a few occasions.

Mr. Skelly

There are more primary than secondary schools. That is also the reason.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Skelly is probably aware of this fact also, because the school to which I have referred is attended by pupils from his constituency. I was in the CBS in James's Street a month or two ago and saw the destruction wrought there. Their insurance premiums will go up as a result. I noted the comments by the principal of one school to the effect that eventually all principals will go to the Department of Education, hand in their keys and say: "You run it, we cannot."

This Bill could not have been introduced at a more inopportune time. I would plead with the Government to withdraw it or to find some excuse to get on with other business for the remainder of whatever term remains until the next general election. Certainly, this is a matter I will be putting to my constituents. I will ensure that they are informed about it. I really believe it was insane of the Government to have introduced this Bill. I do not think they realise the implications of its provisions. We are talking about a figure of £20 million, of which I understand something like £13 million will be applicable to Dublin. It amounts to saying to people that there will be a large increase in their tax bill because they will discover that, whenever they cannot get insurance cover, they will have to pay out of their own pocket, that is, if they have sufficient money to remain in business. I do wish the "Today Tonight" team would prepare a programme on this subject. While they may be criticised on occasion, this would be right up their alley. I should love them to investigate this matter because people must be informed about it.

I have the awful feeling that this Bill will go through the House quietly without a proper recognition of the implications of its provisions. Sometimes I doubt my own sanity. I find myself asking: "Does nobody else see it? Am I absolutely wrong? Do they not realise? Do they know what it is like for people struggling to pay their bills, with bank overdrafts, personal loans and so on, trying to repay those loans and see their insurance premiums suddenly hiked up?"

I tend to view such things in a personal way. For example, to me, my car represents my legs. I need my car to do my job. There are other people, not necessarily public representatives, to whom their cars are equally essential. At least once a fortnight I telephone the community and environmental section of Dublin Corporation asking them to remove a burned out car in such and such a place. We know it happens — it may be occurring less frequently than before — but these things can flare up again very quickly. If any subversive group wants to bring this country to its knees, the way they will do so will be by attacking the economy in order to make life unliveable, when people will then fall for anything. The reason I am always so hot and bothered about law and order is that I have a horror and terror that some day, someone, a potential dictator, will stand before the people and say "You vote for me and I will take care of these problems for you, when they will, and that is how the Hitlers are born."

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. G. Birmingham)

Is the Deputy that worried about his party leader?

Mr. Briscoe

This matter is very serious. I can assure the Minister of State that we did far more about law and order when we were in office. It must be recognised that the crime rate is not reducing. People are no longer bothering to report incidents to the Garda. The Garda are telling them that they are wasting their time coming to them. The figures are there to prove it. The provisions of this Bill constitute a further attack on people. People feel badly enough when their property is vandalised, but the fact that they will not now be compensated makes matters even worse. I am talking about the people who cannot afford exorbitant insurance premiums. What can we do for them. For example, what does one tell a young person whose motor cycle has been wrecked? No doubt he will have had his bike insured — it is doubtful whether his insurance will cover vandalism — but what will be the amount of his insurance premium henceforth? I shudder to think.

What about the shops in Dublin, to which Deputy B. Ahern referred? Will they have to close down? What about employment generally in the centre city area? That will be badly affected. The media have a responsibility to inform the people of what is happening. I beseech them to study the provisions of this Bill and inform people.

The damage being done to churches and community halls have also been referred to. How many times have all of us in this House been in community halls, seen them at all stages of development, being extended, painted, having a new floor installed, new lighting and so on? Then the next thing one hears is that the vandals have been in, ripped out everything, radiators from the walls, and one is back to square one. There will be no way now in which they can be compensated because they will not be able to afford the insurance premiums. This £20 million constitutes a small price to pay to help these people. I know it will be divided into different categories, that there will be the £2 million and £3 million claims, the £100,000 claim and others, but I am talking about the claims of people amounting to, say, £25,000 or £30,000. What will happen them? The implications are frightening. I sometimes think this country has a death wish, aided by this type of legislation.

I have no doubt but that extortion will increase, that a new Mafia will be born, that helpless small businessmen will be forced to pay the godfathers protection money, that there will be a further descent into anarchy, another aid to the collapse of our society. I sometimes wonder if young people working in offices are oblivious to what is happening outside. Do they know what is happening? Deputy Durkan seemed to think that extra gardaí would constitute an answer to the problems. One could put 1,000 extra gardaí on the streets of Dublin and it would not make any difference to the crime wave until the Government introduce legislation which will control the amount of crime by the severity of sentences to be imposed by the courts.

I have said this recently in relation to sentences of 25 years being imposed for armed robbery and so on. For years I have said that parents of children under the age of criminal responsibility should be held liable in law for the crimes committed by their children. If a child sets fire to a car or wrecks a community hall the parents should have to pay for the damage over a period of time. Even if they are social welfare recipients they should have to pay for it. Successive Government have looked at this idea but the result is always the same: it would be unconstitutional and one person cannot be held liable for another person's crimes. However, a person can be held responsible if his dog bites someone and it is easier to communicate with a child than with a dog.

There has not been any great reduction in the crime rate. It is at a very high level for such a small country. We have a homogenous society. We do not have different cultural groups trying to compete with each other as is the case in the UK. We have seen problems caused there through resettling West Indians and we all know about the problems in Brixton. We deplore the riots which occurred there. We do not have racial riots. But something must be done about the crime rate.

The implications of this Bill do not bear thinking about. There is no point in attacking the insurance companies because they are too powerful. They give badly needed employment. They have huge investments. It would be like attacking big oil companies. One can take them on but one will not win against them. If we say we do not like the way they operate they will pull out, and then where will we be? The insurance companies say that they will insure risks at an economic rate. If a premises is insured and is set on fire insurance companies will now pay out for that even though the fire was malicious. Previously if a malicious damage claim was lodged they would not do so. I am thinking about people who lodge small claims of anything up to £40,000. We must protect them. They are the backbone of any society.

This Bill is a cop out. The Government are running away from their responsibility to the less well off sections of the community. I expressed my objections to this Bill when it was first circulated. Others said this was old English legisation which was brought in to make sure the Irish behaved themselves. If it is taken away now without giving adequate protection we are all in for a great shock.

In this speech the Minister referred to terrorist organisations who might plant a bomb on a plane or carry out other terrorist acts. However, he did not deal with the central core of the problem. He stated that if a problem arose in an individual case in obtaining cover for malicious damage then, as in the case where there is difficulty in obtaining cover for other risks, the Department of Industry and Commerce would be prepared to examine the matter to see what can be done. He said that in the final analysis no insurer could be compelled to underwrite a risk or underwrite it on particular terms. That is very honest and very straight. However, that part of the Minister's speech needs to be read carefully. It is stating that it is entirely up to the insurance companies to decide whom and what they will insure. It is not intended to deceive the people but it is put so nicely that it could easily be passed over.

No responsible Member of the House can afford to let this legislation go through. I would love to see what would happen in Deputy Skelly's constituency and in other areas where the hard-pressed middle income group live. No doubt the Deputy will tell us. My constituency embraces Templeogue, Walkinstown, the Liberties and areas where there is a lot of crime and lawlessness. Are the Government serious? They have had to compromise in recent times. I heard recently on the radio that Americans use the word "compromise" whereas we tend to talk about "climb downs". I am not looking for a climb down but rather a compromise: withdraw this legislation and rethink the matter again. There has been a compromise in regard to the teachers' dispute and I have no doubt that a compromise will be reached with the binmen. Sooner or later that dispute will be settled, I hope it will be sooner rather than later.

Will the Government reconsider the implications of the legislation before us? I do not think I have overpainted the picture. What I have said is a reflection of how the provisions of the Bill will affect many people. I do not see how people can be expected to pay for such damage from their own pockets. It is the same as levying a tax of £13 million on the citizens of Dublin. They are being told that they will have to cough up that amount. It would be worth calculating how much that represents for each man, woman and child in the city. In considering the decision to drop that compensation we should bear in mind the rate of unemployment in the city. It is a gigantic problem.

The Minister told us he was aware that concern had been expressed by some interested groups that as a result of this legislation insurance companies might refuse to give cover. Will the Minister name the interested groups? Did the Minister consult any groups before introducing the legislation? Did he consult with the insurance companies? Did he consult Seán Citizen, the man who pays our salaries and allowances, meagre though they are? Our citizens should be made aware of the implications of the legislation. Fianna Fáil believe it is their duty to call for the dropping of this legislation which should not have been contemplated until such time as crime is under control. The crime wave has been increasing since 1969. In the first four months of this year 265 armed robberies took place and we must add to that figure all the acts of vandalism.

The Minister for Justice has stated that in 1981, 89,000 indictable offences were reported to the Garda, an increase of 22.8 per cent on the previous year. How many indictable offences were reported last year? Vandalism must be stopped and I am determined that it will be. I wish some Minister succeeded in stopping it. If that happens we will not be worried about legislation like this. Malicious injury compensation is the only way we can protect the less well off sections of our community whose property is vandalised. When big stores are damaged or burned down the insurance companies take care of them.

I accept that if the Bill is passed lawyers may make some money because they will have fewer court cases to deal with. It is ironic that in 1981 legislation was passed to allow local authorities settle small claims for malicious injury compensation. That legislation was passed because the House was aware of the hardship suffered by people who have to wait two or three years to have their claims dealt with. That change in the legislation meant a lot to many poor people, but under this Bill we are not giving such people a chance. Those people are being squeezed all the time and are being driven off the streets and out of their homes. Do we not have any compassion?

Who will help people whose property is damaged maliciously now that the Government are washing their hands of this? Local authorities will be glad to get the money so that they can release it for something else. I accept that all outstanding claims will be met but we must bear in mind what is likely to happen in the next two or three years to those who cannot claim malicious injury compensation. Ministers should question people in their constituencies about the implications of the Bill. They should ask those who have been paid malicious injury awards what they would have done had they not received such compensation. Some years ago a constituent of mine told me that his motor mower, valued at £300, had been set on fire by vandals. He was glad that he could claim compensation under the malicious injuries code but what would happen to him today if his mower was destroyed? What will happen to the person whose front door is split in half with an axe? That person may not be able to afford the insurance premium or the insurance company may decline to cover him on the basis that he lives in a bad area. The Minister has told us that we cannot compel insurance companies to insure people.

Has the Minister had consultations with school principals about the implications of the legislation? I suggest that school principals write to Government TDs about the implications of it. Where will they get the money to pay the extra premiums to insure their schools? Deputy Ahern told us that the principal of a school in his constituency has said that next September he may have to hand the keys of the school to the Department and say he cannot manage any more. Such people are battling against huge odds. I appeal to the Minister to put the legislation before the people in the next general election campaign. It should not be introduced until we have succeeded in reducing crime. I cannot believe that the Government are so foolish as to introduce legislation like this now.

Debate adjourned.