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.