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

Minister for Justice (Mr. Dukes)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

In August 1984 the Government announced as one of a number of measures aimed at reducing public expenditure the termination of the Malicious Injuries Scheme contained in the Malicious Injuries Act, 1981. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to that decision by replacing the existing scheme with a new scheme under which compensation for malicious damage will be available in a limited number of circumstances only.

The Government have been concerned at the continuing rise in the cost of meeting claims for malicious damage and the consequential effect on the level of current public expenditure. In 1979 the total cost of malicious damage claims, including that portion of claims borne by local authorities, was £3.5 million. The cost of claims relating to 1985 was just under £20 million. Practically all claims relate to damage against which the claimant can be insured.

The Bill replaces the existing scheme of compensation for malicious damages with a new scheme which is designed to give protection in the limited number of cases, to which I will come in a moment, where insurance cover is normally excluded. Not to provide for compensation in these cases would mean that financial protection against loss occasioned by the type of damage in question would not be available. The Bill also provides for full recoupment by the Exchequer of compensation awards made against local authorities under the new scheme, including local authorities' own legal costs in connection with such awards. I will return to this aspect of the Bill later.

Section 2 of the Bill sets out the grounds on which compensation for malicious damage may be claimed under the new scheme. The section, which amends section 5 of the 1981 Act by substituting two new subsections for subsections (1) and (2) of the 1981 provision, will apply to claims in respect of damage caused after the passing of this legislation, leaving the existing law to apply in relation to damage caused up to that date. Under the new arrangements, damage to property will be compensatable in three circumstances: first, where the damage is caused during a riot; second, where it results from an act committed maliciously by an unlawful organisation as defined in the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, and, third, where it results from an act committed maliciously by an organisation from outside the State which is engaged in violence for purposes related to the conduct or administration of the affairs of the State or of Northern Ireland.

I am aware that concern has been expressed by some interested groups that, as a result of this legislation, insurance companies may refuse to give cover for malicious damage in some individual cases. Where difficulties arise, it is very likely that similar difficulties already exist in relation to other insurable risks, such as theft, so that the termination of the existing malicious injuries scheme should not alter the situation to any great extent. If a problem does arise in an individual case in obtaining cover for malicious damage then, as is the case where difficulties in obtaining cover in relation to other risks are referred to it, the Department of Industry and Commerce will be prepared to examine the matter to see what can be done. Of course, in the final analysis, no insurer can be compelled to underwrite a particular risk or underwrite it on particular terms, but advice may be available from the insurer which would enable the policyholder to improve the risk so as to enable it to be covered.

To return to the Bill, I should perhaps explain that riot is, of course, used in section 2 in its technical legal sense. It is in this sense also that it is used in exclusion clauses in insurance policies. To constitute a riot there must be at least three persons involved; they must have a common purpose; there must be an intent to help one another, by force if necessary against any person who may oppose them in the execution of their common purpose; and there must be force or violence not merely used in chieving their purpose, but displayed in such a manner as to alarm at least one person of reasonable firmness and courage. All of these elements must be present before the resulting damage can be compensated for. For example, if three people enter premises in the middle of the night, damage or set fire to them and run away, that alone would not constitute a riot.

Deputies will notice that the riot provision in the new section 5 (1) refers to damage caused unlawfully by "one or more of a number (exceeding two) of persons riotously assembled together" rather than damage caused unlawfully "by three or more persons...riotously ...assembled together" which is the formulation used in the 1981 Act. The drafting of the subsection in this way is simply to remove any doubt there might be as to whether damage caused by one or two persons in the course of a riot is compensatable.

The new subsection (1) also provides for damage caused by unlawful organisations as defined in the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, and by certain other organisations from outside the State. Damage caused by such organisations has always been covered, of course, by the general compensation provisions which have existed up to now. The need for a specific provision arises because of the termination of those general provisions. In order that damage caused by an organisation from outside the State will be compensatable the organisation must be such as uses or advocates violence in relation to the affairs of the State or Northern Ireland. To leave it at that, however, could give rise to the situation where the State could be put in the position of having to pay compensation for damage caused in the State in circumstances over which it had no control.

A common example of international terrorism, of which we are all, unfortunately, too well aware, is the hi-jacking of ships or aircraft, often for the purpose of trying to force a country to release persons lawfully detained in its prisons. In the absence of any qualification in the section, the possibility would exist of compensation claims being made against the State in respect of ships or aircraft which, having been hi-jacked outside the State, are blown up or damaged here. To prevent claims of this nature being made, the section contains, at paragraph (b) of subsection (1), a proviso the effect of which would be to ensure that no compensation would be payable where damage was caused to a ship or aircraft in the State as a result of an act—for example, the placing thereon of an explosive device—done outside the State or as a result of an act done in the State by a person or persons who travelled into the State on the ship or aircraft in question.

Section 3 provides for the issue of a certificate by a Chief Superintendent that he is of opinion that a specified act was committed maliciously by a person acting on behalf of one of the organisations mentioned in section 2. An injured party would not normally be able to prove in court that the damage he suffered was caused by a person acting on behalf of or in connection with such an organisation and, accordingly, so that the provisions in such cases may have effect, the Bill provides a role for the Garda Síochána. The Chief Superintendent's certificate would be issued to the person who proposes to make an application for compensation and it would constitute evidence that the act referred to in the certificate was committed maliciously by a person acting on behalf of or, in connection with one of the organisations in question. Of course, the refusal of a certificate would not prevent a claimant bringing forward other evidence to support his case.

In the normal course of events where such a certificate is given by the Chief Superintendent it will decide the central issue in the case and the main issue remaining will be the quantum of damages. It is unlikely, in view of the fact that a local authority by virtue of section 16 of the 1981 Act may settle claims brought against it, that any case in which a certificate is given will actually end up in court. As the information on which a certificate will be based may involve matters of national security, subsection (2) of the section provides that a Chief Superintendent will not be required to disclose that information, or its source, in any proceedings.

Section 6 of the 1981 Act introduced for the first time in our law provision for compensation for property taken from a building damaged during a riot and tumult. This provision is being continued in section 4 of the Bill but subject to drafting amendments so as to bring the section into line with the wording of section 2 of the Bill and two other amendments intended to remedy anomalies which came to light during the redrafting of the provision. It is to these later amendments that I now turn.

The 1981 provision, which is designed to cover compensation for property looted from a damaged building, is confined to cases where the damage to the building exceeds £100. This leads to the situation where payment of compensation could depend on whether, for example, the window broken to get at the property costs more or less than £100 to have repaired. The redrafted provision relates the "cut-off" point to the value of the property taken rather than to the value of the damage caused and this, I am sure Deputies will agree, is clearly the correct approach. The 1981 provision is also anomalous in that, while it would seem logical to make compensation conditional on whether the damage caused to the building or property within its curtilage facilitated the taking of the property, it is difficult to see why other damage, for example to a chimney stack or to an ornamental statue in a front garden, should enable compensation to be paid for property stolen from the building. Section 4 of the Bill amends the 1981 provision by providing that, in order for a claim for compensation for property taken to succeed, the damage caused to the building or property within its curtilage must facilitate the taking of the property or entry to the building for the purpose of such taking.

Before I leave this section I should like to emphasise the fact that in the case of compensation for property taken during a riot the provision requires the further ingredient of "tumult", that is, the persons must be "tumultuously" as well as "riotously" assembled together — in other words, a riot in the popular sense where looting normally occurs. This added element of tumult is not required for compensation for damage to property caused during a riot as it is damage caused by riot simpliciter that tends to be specified in insurance policies as being excluded for insurance cover.

Section 7 of the 1981 Act provides that it shall not be a defence to an application for compensation merely to show that the damage to which the application relates was caused by a person of unsound mind or by a child.

While, as I have already said, damage caused maliciously to property by such organisations as are mentioned in section 2 of the Bill was compensatable under the general provisions of the 1981 Act, the specific provisions in relation to that type of damage in this legislation has highlighted the fact that the damage may be caused by a person acting under duress. In such a case it could be argued that an act, while done intentionally, was not done maliciously. It is in order to meet this argument that section 5 of the Bill exends the provision in section 7 of the 1981 Act so as to ensure that damage caused by a person acting under duress will not be uncompensatable merely on that account.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the Bill provides for full recoupment by the Exchequer of the cost of compensation awards made against local authorities under the amended scheme including legal costs. The decision of the Government will, I have no doubt, be welcome news to all local authorities. Section 6 contains the substantive provision. Sections 7 and 8 are consequential amendments.

It might be argued that, since local authorities will no longer be liable for any portion of compensation awards made against them — they are liable at the moment to the extent of the produce of a rate of 20p in the pound in any local financial year — the whole burden of administering the scheme should be transferred to a central authority. This matter was debated at some length during the passage of the 1981 Act through the Oireachtas and 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 and the contesting of claims in appropriate cases at court hearings. In fact, I envisage very few hearings arising under the amended scheme and any cases that do come to court will generally be confined, for the reasons I have already mentioned, to claims connected with riot damage. Overall the workload of local authorities in this area will be greatly reduced when the new scheme takes effect. On the other hand, to transfer the responsibility to the State 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 responsibility from local authorities in respect of the very restricted scheme now proposed would hardly effect significant savings to them.

Apart from the burden imposed on them by payment of compensation, local authorities have also been concerned at the burden imposed by payment of their own legal costs as a result of defending successful claims. No part of these legal costs is recoupable at present. The Bill gives total relief to local authorities as regards both compensation and these costs.

There is one further matter in the Bill to which I want to refer. I have already mentioned that the 1981 Act, as it stands at present, will apply to cases of damage occurring before the passing of this Bill. For this reason, the full extent of the savings to the Exchequer resulting from the enactment of this legislation will not become apparent for a year or two. The expected savings, when all claims made under the 1981 provisions have been dealt with, are estimated at over £20 million annually.

Before I conclude, I think it is important to point out that the amendments to the malicious injuries scheme proposed in this Bill will bring our law in this area more into line with equivalent legislation in England and Northern Ireland, where compensation for malicious damage is not available on the comprehensive level which obtains under our existing law. It seems to the Government that there are no special circumstances in our case which would warrant the continuance of a malicious injuries code which was more or less dismantled in Northern Ireland 30 years ago and which never existed to the same degree in England.

I commend the Bill to the House and ask that it be given a Second Reading.

Dr. Woods

I found the Minister's speech very interesting, more for what it did not contain than for what was in it. Fianna Fáil are opposed to this Coalition Bill, which will have the effect of abolishing the present scheme of compensation for damage maliciously caused to property except where the damage is caused by a riot or by the activities of unlawful organisations. The Minister devoted a lot of his speech to riots, unlawful organisations, terrorism and all the terrible things that happen from time to time. They are exceptional and are outside the normal course of events and, because of that, in practice they cost very little. The real cost to the community arises from the acts of vandalism, crime and destruction that is to be seen all about us in this city. The Minister is turning his back on the cost of that. He is turning away from the ordinary people who run schools community centres and those responsible for churches. Many of those buildings are being vandalised. It is almost impossible to get glass replacement for some schools. In some cases it is not possible to insure school windows.

The Minister has told us that very few items are not covered by insurance and suggested that in the rare cases where items cannot be covered those concerned should have a word with the Department of Industry and Commerce. Can one imagine people from Dublin's inner city going to the Department of Industry and Commerce and asking them to deal with the problem they face daily? What about the people who are suffering in other parts of Dublin, in Cork and Limerick. The first thing they will be told is that the matter is outside the scope of the Department, that crime and vandalism a matter for the Department of Just and that insurance cannot be provide against certainties. Those people will told by officials in the Department Industry and Commerce that they cannot provide for the day to day havoc that is wreaked on communities on a daily basis

The Minister is abolishing the normal compensation code that is available people. He has suggested that there was no reason why we should not do what is done in England. There is every reason why we should not follow England in and many other areas. Does the Minister not realise that he is giving into na Thatcherism, hard, right wing policies? I do not have to use my imagination regard to this — I do not have a lot of that; I am too methodical — because the Minister omitted to mention all the people he is turning his back on. He has skilfully tried to concentrate our minds on such matters as international terrorism. When did we last lose a ship, apart from those the Government gave away? I accept that arrangements have to be made to prevent such acts.

The Minister's proposals are ill-timed and will deal a heavy blow to communities and businesses which are already scourged by an epidemic of crime, lawlessness and vandalism. There is no point in us pretending that the position is otherwise. The malicious injuries compensation scheme is specifically directed towards helping communities in areas where the State has failed to provide adequate protection from crime and vandalism. Almost 50 per cent of the items affected by this legislation relate to car stealing. These are not acts of terrorism but the wantom destruction of property and it occurs daily. Statistics show that areas affected most are in Dublin, Cork and Limerick. Damage is also caused in some rural areas.

Dublin is in a terrible state at present. In spite of that, the Minister is turning his back on the people who are suffering and telling them to get some more insurance cover and, if they cannot get it, to hand the matter over to protection rackets and so on. A survey carried out in 1984 in Dublin indicated that 48.2 per cent of claims related to damage to cars and motor cycles. There is where the scheme money went. It normally fluctuates evenly between cars and cycles. Fifty-one per cent of the money goes to compensate for damage to property. We can take a look at the way it is spread over Dublin.

In Dublin 1, 16.9 per cent of the malicious damage is done; in Dublin 2 the percentage is 8.6. That means that more than 25 per cent of the expenditure is in the two inner city areas. One does not need much imagination to see why: it is where the crime rate is highest; it is where vandalism is rampant, where cars are being stolen. If we go to Dublin 4, the percentage drops to 3.3. Further out, in Dublin 14, the percentage is 1.9. In Dublin 5, it is 5.3 per cent.

This is not London, Manchester, Glasgow or The Hague. This vandalism and malicious damage in the pursuit of crime is happening in Dublin now. I know the Minister is just carrying out his duty. Many people think this compensation has been abolished since 1984. This was trotted out repeatedly in the media by people who gave a particular slant to it. Today is the day the Bill comes before us and when the realities must be faced. The effect of the Bill now, in 1986, will be to impose additional burdens on people and businesses who have been lashed by crime throughout the years. The basic problem is the breakdown in law and order. If the Government had succeeded in reducing crime the wanton destruction and the damage to property and persons would have fallen.

The Minister should examine where the anomolies in the Bill will have most effect. He is not doing that. He is virtually abolishing the protections already there, except in particular circumstances. Instead of fighting crime, the Government have been taking the easy way out by first cutting back on personal compensation for crime victims and removing compensation for damage to property. The Government are reducing compensation significantly for personal injuries criminally inflicted in the course of committing crime. The Bill will reduce compensation for such injuries. The second part proposes to wipe out compensation for damage to property caused during the commission of crime. In other words, the Government have turned their backs on the crime problem.

These proposals will result in higher insurance costs for motorists, householders, school authorities, churches, community and sporting groups, and businesses. In his speech the Minister said that people can have their costs covered, that insurance companies in some instances may refuse to give cover for malicious damage. He said:

If we had a problem we will have another one now because the Minister is accentuating the problems already there. Those who were insurable will be uninsurable after the passage of this Bill. He said that some people in some individual cases will be able to minimise the loss. It is not minimal: it is extensive and it is a matter the Minister should face up to.

The impact of this Bill will be great. The increase in costs for victims will be far greater in the large urban areas such as Dublin, Cork and Limerick, because that is where the major part of the compensation has been going; that is where the crimes have been committed, the cars stolen, where we have the need for compensation. If the Minister tackles crime in the way it should be tackled there will be no need for compensation.

It is because this is a problem caused by crime that the Bill has been introduced by the Minister for Justice. It is with that Minister the responsibility lies to reduce crime. The impact of this Bill will be seen clearly in its effects on insurance cover for schools, principally primary schools which are the symbol of security and authority and therefore the targets for vandals, arsonists and malicious burglars. We get telephone calls every day from schools authorities because of vandalism committed in schools and because of break-ins. On the numerous occasions when I have spoken on this subject in the House I have been able to refer to recent events, and one of the greatest targets are the schools.

This Bill will have a very damaging effect on schools, community centres and sports halls. Although boards of management have spent countless thousands of pounds on fencing and security, they are totally frustrated by recurring crimes of vandalism. Throughout urban areas many primary schools are based on open plan and consequently are vulnerable to crimes of vandalism. These schools have suffered greatly as a result. Now they have high and expensive fencing. The same thing is happening around old folks' centres. One of the main topics of conversation nowadays among people who are involved in the management of schools and centres of various kinds is the cost of fencing that is necessary to give them security. Palisade fencing is very popular and I am sure if the Minister consults with the Minister for Education he will find that the Department have become experts on fencing of all kinds. They have had to spend enormous sums on the provision of fencing. Even though the level of vandalism has been reduced in some cases, school authorities have been frustrated by all the damage that has been caused and by the recurring problem of vandalism. The same applies to community centres, especially if they are not part of a large complex where they would have a better chance of having security provided for them.

If the Minister had said that the Government were going to provide a new scheme that would give protection for the schools and ensure that any damage caused would be made good, then we could look at what could be done in relation to compensation for malicious damage. However, he is not saying that. He is withdrawing the limited protection that exists for them and the effect on them will be enormous.

Demands for extra policing and security have fallen on deaf ears because the Government have restricted Garda availability and overtime, even in high crime areas. Boards of management in primary schools in particular are totally frustrated by the recurring vandalism and damage caused to their property. Yet, Garda overtime has been so restricted that gardaí are not available. Of course they will provide an extra patrol to pass by during the day or night but because they have not the resources they cannot prevent the vandalism and the crime that is occuring. Perhaps the Minister would ask the Commissioner or any member of the Garda or the Minister for Education to tell him the facts.

If the Government go ahead with the proposals in this Bill it is predicted by the insurance industry that insurance premia in the Dublin area will rise immediately by some 45 per cent in the case of primary schools, where the problems are at their worst, and by 30 per cent in the case of post-primary schools, where it has been somewhat easier to control events but where the schools are still suffering. That is the kind of increase that will occur. We are not talking about the figures of 2 per cent or 3 per cent mentioned by the Taoiseach. We are talking about massive increases in insurance costs for boards of management of schools.

The Minister does not have to take my word. He can check with the Minister for Education and he will find out that the order of increase I am mentioning here is what is being considered throughout the industry. That is the reality facing schools at this time, but the Minister said nothing about it in his speech. He did not tell us what he will do about all of this. He may say it is a matter for the Minister for Education, that it is his tough luck, but surely this issue was discussed at Cabinet. Surely there must be Cabinet responsibility. Surely the Constitution has not been set aside to that extent, that there is not shared Cabinet responsibility about these matters. I ask the Minister in his reply to this debate to tell us if the Minister for Education made the point about the schools, or do the Government care about them? If the Minister for Education pointed out the facts, why was the matter not covered in the speech this morning? The Minister for Education and the boards of management of schools cannot run to the Department of Industry and Commerce. We know the answer they would get there.

All the boards of management of schools are worried about this matter. The Minister talks here in a vacuum, but he does that frequently. He ignores the crime situation. He is following his predecessor in giving public relations handouts about statistical levels of crime when he knows that vandalism and violence are still at a very high level. Indeed, he is even using the term "plateau" that was used by his predecessor. I should like to tell the Minister that a plateau is on the top of a mountain and that is what has happened with crime. It is the mountain of crime that is the problem, not whether it has a peak or a flat top. If he consults with the Minister for Education he will find there is a mountainous problem for the schools in this measure before the house. He should withdraw the Bill. This is not the time to bring in the harsh, right wing policies the Minister is proposing. I know Deputy Kelly does not see this as being very important in Dublin 4. As I indicated in the figures I gave the House, very little of the compensation goes his way. It goes into the areas that are hard pressed by crime.

Mr. Kelly

What upsets me is the inability to distinguish one wing from another. Right wing policies, my eye.

Dr. Woods

The two wings in the Government are in trouble at this stage. These increases in costs are being anticipated by the schools and the insurance industry, but the Minister did not refer to that matter this morning. It is anticipated that insurance for glass breakage and damage associated with burglary will rise by over 100 per cent for schools while insurance for fire damage for schools will rise by some 35 per cent to 40 per cent. I know of one school where glass breakage in a year costs £35,000 while other schools have to face bills ranging from £3,000 to £7,000. The trouble is that this problem is constant.

That kind of damage is extensive in primary schools throughout the city; it is not particularly concentrated in the most deprived and crime ridden areas. If the Minister were to take the time to inquire into the factors which influence that situation. Perhaps he could come up with some good solutions, but that is not the approach he has adopted. Instead, he is rushing to abolish malicious injuries compensation and he will leave it to somebody else to look after the fallout. It is the job of the Department to deal with crime, lawlessness and vandalism.

The most densely populated and poorest areas will suffer most and education, particularly at primary level, will be dealt a severe blow by this Bill. If the Minister does not realise this, I suggest that he contact his colleague in Education and the boards of management of primary schools and, to a lesser extent second level schools. Insurance charges for schools have already increased by over 100 per cent since 1982 because of the high rates of crime and vandalism. We are not talking about an area where the impact of an increase in insurance will not be very great. It will be very great because already there has been a 100 per cent increase since 1982. Anybody who has contact with boards of management knows they are finding it extremely difficult to find finance.

Only yesterday there was vandalism in an area near where I live. Traders wanted to see the Minister because they want action. A number of shops in the shopping centre were closed. These shops are being vandalised every day and they have to give into the perpetrators of these crimes. I am meeting this group at the weekend to see what we can do. I have been in touch repeatedly with the gardaí and they sent a garda to the area. He ended up in hospital in a critical condition. It is very wrong to send one man into such an area, brave as he might be. This problem must be tackled on a wider basis.

In the middle of all this, a school manager told me he must get in touch with parents. He will not be able to provide heating and other services in the school for the rest of the year because of the high insurance costs. This school has a very serious vandalism problem. The board are trying to deal with these loaded costs — running local functions to try to meet their day to day costs—and this Bill will place an added burden on them. Instead of the Government providing special protection and assistance for such schools, they are withdrawing malicious injuries compensation and telling the school it is their tough luck if their insurance for glass is increased by 100 per cent and their other school insurance is increased by 45 per cent. In addition to that 100 per cent increase, policies have been loaded since 1982 by between 50 per cent and 100 per cent for damage to glass and burglary in particular areas.

I appeal to the Minister not to do a Pontius Pilate act on our schools, churches and community groups. Instead, he should withdraw these highly damaging and discriminatory proposals and commit himself to reducing crime, thereby reducing the cost of malicious damages claims. That is the logical way to go about things. We would be very happy to discuss with the Minister the rationalisation of this scheme if he puts his resources into reducing crime and vandalism. The State must protect the people and be prepared to compensate them when it fails. Let us be honest about it: the State is failing to protect the people in this instance.

The Minister's proposal in the current disastrous state of crime and vandalism could best be described as an uncaring policy of naked Thatcherism. The Government are divesting themselves of financial responsibility for the victims of crime at a time when the burden on the community is at its greatest. The cost to the Exchequer of malicious injury claims has more than trebled since the Coalition came into office in 1982, from just under £5.6 million to an estimated £18.7 million for 1985 — and £20 million so far this year. These are the official figures from the Book of Estimates. This is the real reason why this Government are attempting to abolish malicious injury compensation now. The trebling of these costs has been related to the incidence of crime because we are talking about costs arising from crime and vandalism. While there has been an increase in crime, the cost of compensation has also been increased and the solution offered by the Government is to do away with compensation, except in very rare circumstances which must be covered.

The Government are trying to have it both ways. They will not pay the price to prevent crime and they will not pay the price to compensate the victims for injury to either person or property. As I said earlier, compensation for personal injury has been severely reduced from 1 April, but that was not a statutory scheme; it was an administrative scheme and the Government did not have to come into this House to change it. That could be, and was, done with the stroke of a pen. They have reduced the compensation for personal injury and the compensation for damage is being dealt with in this Bill by wiping it out in all circumstances.

There is also an essential contradiction in the Minister's position. On the one hand he has claimed repeatedly that the overall level of crime is falling. If this is true, then surely claims for malicious injuries should also be declining with benefit to both the Exchequer and the community. But the Minister knows that crimes of violence and of vandalism are still rampant. The community demands that the Government provide prevention and protection from criminals and vandals and compensation for defenceless and impecunious victims.

The practical effects of this Bill will be horrendous for those who are most affected by crime. Some of the more obvious effects are as follows. We know that approximately half the total compensation goes for stolen damaged cars. The Minister's proposal will increase the cost of car insurance by an estimated 5 per cent, and some will say it will be more than that on a comprehensive policy, but for third party fire and theft the increase will be even higher. I am not putting a figure on that because I have consulted various people and tried to judge what that is, but all they can say at this stage is that it would be very much greater than the 5 per cent that will have to apply to the comprehensive insurance policy. The reason is that in a comprehensive policy the fire and theft part is just one part of the total policy whereas when it is isolated and on its own the impact percentage wise would be much greater.

In most years recently malicious damage to motor vehicles has accounted for aproximately 50 per cent of the total compensation. The extensive damage to stolen cars by thieves and joyriders has been one of the principal features of crime in Dublin and other urban areas and it is still going on. As far as we can gather from the statistics, it can be reduced somewhat. We are waiting to see the figures for 1985. Indeed, they should be out by this stage. I remember that a few years ago they used to come out in May, but they have been coming out in July since then. I do not know whether it is a question of waiting until the House rises or what the Minister is doing, but it would be helpful to the House if he brought out those figures. It seems possible by asking innumerable questions about 1985 now to get most of these statistics, so why not just publish them and put them on the table and let us all see them? If they show a drop in stolen and damaged cars and vandalism to cars, then maybe there is the basis for a fall in this kind of compensation. There must be, because it accounts for approximately half of the compensation here. Therefore, why does the Minister not give us those facts? Perhaps in his reply he will give them.

Of course, the Minister has a problem there. If he finds that car stealing is falling — it is still extensive in Dublin, but I understand that it is not as great as it was two years or a year and a half ago — he is caught in a cleft stick. Why is he proposing then that we take away this kind of thing? Will it not come down anyway? Can he not wait until it is down to a very low level and is not a serious problem and the insurers can then pick it up and carry it without putting an enormous burden on the motorist?

The Minister's proposals will directly cause motor and motor cycle insurance premiums to rocket upwards once again. The motorist is already one of the principal contributors to the Exchequer, so let the Minister not try to tell me in his reply that the Exchequer is carrying this burden and the motorist should carry his own burden. The motorist is carrying the Exchequer burden. If the motorist is getting only a small pay back through this to keep things in some sort of reasonable shape for the time being while we have this terrible onslaught of crime and vandalism, the motorist is carrying too great a burden. He needs protection from vandals and reduced motoring costs. The Dublin motorist is loaded already by insurers. People like to talk about the lower cost of motoring in London, Manchester or somewhere else, but go outside Dublin and you have a lower cost right away, and you can see the reason for it. The Minister's statistics reveal very clearly that a very large part of the compensation here is for Dublin. Out of a total of approximately £20 million about £13 million is for Dublin city and county. It is said that this is very much an anti Dublin city and county measure, but it also affects very much Cork and Limerick and then urban areas throughout the country, but of course the really big ones are Dublin city and county.

Mr. Kelly

We were accused of being anti the west.

Dr. Woods

You are antibodies. You are kind of anti people. That is the problem.

Mr. Kelly

We are trying to run the country and the country consists of people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Kelly, you will be speaking on this later.

Dr. Woods

It breaks out everywhere. Now that the Deputy brings it to my attention, as far as this measure is concerned we could say that they are anti the schools, the churches, community centres and anti small business that is beleaguered at the moment. They are anti the motorist. They are not going to support, protect, develop, promote or help any of these sectors. They are going to fall adversely and very severely on all these people.

Why are the Government doing it at this time? I find that very difficult to understand. I know that there is an argument about a big fire that occurred in Dublin and it turned out that it was arson. The people had paid insurance for perhaps 100 years and then people asked why the Exchequer should have to carry the cost of arson in such a case. There is an argument in that when such a case happens once in a hundred years. That is the rare case. Here we are talking about what is happening day in day out in the community, and the effect of the Minister's proposals in those circumstances is going to be disastrous.

As I see it, the Dublin motorist is loaded already by insurers. His position will become intolerable if the Minister proceeds with this Bill. A sum of the order of £10 million will be transferred onto the motorists' backs by the Government. The £10 million is approximately half and that fits in with the global figure of about £20 million that the Minister gave. About half that means that he is going to pass on approximately £10 million to those people who are paying motor insurance, not onto the total body of motorists, because we know that we have a very high proportion of people who are not paying motor insurance and who are motoring. This would put some motorists off the road and would increase the already high incidence of uninsured drivers. We know that the incidence of uninsured drivers is already very high. We are back again to the cost of motor insurance today and the extent of car thefts and the damaging, burning, vandalising and stealing from cars. We have a high incidence of uninsured drivers partly because of that. This in turn will place yet a further burden on the motorist through extra demand for compensation from the Motor Insurance Bureau. It will have a twofold effect. On the one hand it will take some motorists off the road, and they will not be contributing to insurance; and the increasing number who are uninsured will reflect on the provision through the Motor Insurance Bureau and will have a further effect of increasing the cost. While the comprehensive insurance of cars would increase by 5 per cent, third party fire and theft policies would increase by a much higher percentage. Third party fire and theft would not have the protection of a more major, widely spread policy and the percentage effect would be much greater in those circumstances.

The next areas affected would be the schools, community centres and churches. I have made reference to the schools, but all of these amenities represent authority in the community and have come under heavy and repeated attacks from vandals and thieves. Already some schools are becoming uninsurable because of the high frequency of claims. Glass is now uninsurable in some schools. The Minister seemed to think this is very rare but that is not the case and there is no doubt that the Minister's proposals would have a disastrous effect on primary schools.

It is estimated that insurance premiums in the major urban areas will increase by 45 per cent in the case of primary schools and 30 per cent for post-primary schools, where the incidence of damage is less. These overall increases mask the very high costs in specific items. It is estimated that insurance for glass damage will rise by 125 per cent, by over 100 per cent for burglary and by 40 per cent for fire damage. They are the problems which will be faced by the schools if this Bill is passed and that is why we are opposing it. These are the current estimates made by the industry in this area which highlight the damaging effects which the Government's proposals will have on the finances of schools' boards of management.

Community centres and churches have also been the targets of arsonists and vandals. These bodies cannot stand further costs as community centres are already hard pressed to meet the massive insurance costs which must be borne by voluntary groups. Are they now to be further penalised for their voluntary work? Their insurance will increase and they will be punished for working voluntarily for local communities, organising sporting activities and games for the children in the area. It will be very much more difficult for these people to survive in the areas torn by crime and vandalism. The Minister is turning his back on them and he does not seem to care about the consequences of removing compensation for vandalism.

A new feature is sweeping the country, the vandalising of churches and adjoining premises. There is increasing damage from fires in churches, which was very rare in the past. Major churches have been badly burned. These are reported in the newspapers but the smaller fires cause much more trouble for insurance companies and those trying to maintain the premises. It may cost only £2,000 or £3,000 in direct damage when a sacristy is set on fire but the smoke goes through the church or parish building affected and causes extensive damage running into £20,000 or £30,000. Although the fire may have been small and well contained its results could have devastating effects on a community.

I heard of a case recently where the St. Vincent de Paul Society had organised clothing for the poor and had some garments left over. Unfortunately, when they were left overnight in a hall they were scattered around and set on fire. There was nothing else in the hall. It was an act of pure vandalism. The fire brigade were there very quickly and put out the fire but the smoke damage to the building was enormous. This happens all too frequently nowadays in community centres and churches. Many churches now lock their doors in the daytime to guard against vandals. It is a clear sign of the breakdown in law and order. It is estimated that insurance costs will rise by at least 12½ per cent for churches and community centres in urban areas as a result of the Government's proposals in this Bill.

In some urban areas underwriters are not prepared to provide fire insurance because the risk of arson is considered too high. Therefore, the suggestion that individuals or businesses can cover these risks by increased insurance is false and misleading. The Minister in his speech indicated that this was the line that should be taken by people in general. He said:

Not to provide for compensation in these cases would mean that financial protection against loss occasioned by the type of damage in question would not be available.

He seems to regard this type of damage as rare but he should know that it is frequent and extensive throughout Dublin at present. The burden on the Exchequer has increased in relation to compensation because the Minister has failed to deal with crime, vandalism and arson.

The Crime Prevention Council state that, on average, there are 1,300 arson attacks every year. Since the early sixties there has been a 13-fold increase in suspected arson attacks on industrial and commercial premises. It is noted that the sum loss suggestors have estimated that the number of claims for fires suspected to be malicious has risen from 35 per cent for claims involving £100,000 and over in 1982 to 63 per cent in 1983. This rising trend in malicious claims has ensured that underwriters have now declared certain parts of Dublin city and county as uninsurable. There is no point in trying to cover up the major problems which exist. It is not an isolated or exceptional situation. It occurs extensively, particularly in Dublin city and county. Of course it is necessary for any business to have fire cover on their property as a prerequisite to obtaining finance so, if a business is trying to get off the ground, they must have fire cover or they will not get finance. If an insured person or company is unable to obtain fire cover for a premises, he will then be unable to raise finance and, consequently, the business transaction will fall through.

Companies and businesses will not be able to set up in certain areas. We know these areas as they are mentioned often in this House when Members point to their needs. They are in Dublin, Cork and Limerick and there is a great need for a development programme in this regard. The Minister's proposals will worsen the situation. A further complication will be the fact that, if people are unable to raise finance for purchasing premises, the value of large areas in Dublin city centre will fall rapidly and many business people will be forced to move out. Small business people in lower income areas will find that the only insurance which they did have, the malicious injury code, has been taken away from them and they will be unable to obain or afford insurance to cover their risks. For many, the malicious injury code is the only cover they have in these areas and, without it, they will be unable to continue in business.

The Minister's proposals will worsen this situation. The problem will be further complicated because, if people are unable to raise the finance to purchase premises, the value of large areas in Dublin's city centre will drop rapidly and many business people will be forced to move out. Many small business people in lower income areas will find that the only insurance they had, that is the malicious injury code, has been taken away from them and they will be unable either to obtain or afford insurance to cover that risk. Without this cover they will not be able to continue in business. I make these comments after consultation with business people in these areas and with the insurance industry. But one does not have to go and talk to these people to find out what is going on. Anyone who listens to the debates in this House about crime and vandalism and the problems in various areas knows what is going on. It is borne out by the figures involved in this compensation scheme. It is clear that these areas need this support which the Government are now planning to remove.

Protection rackets are closely linked to the difficulties in obtaining insurance experience by business people in certain areas. This will be worsened by the abolition of the malicious injury code. Fire insurance will rise by at least 10 per cent nationally if this Bill is passed. In the high risk areas the increase could be as high as 25 per cent. These are not simply the views of the insurers but of the management and the brokers. I have spoke to each of these groups and it is clear that the Minister's proposals can only create a fertile breeding ground for protection rackets in certain areas, particularly Dublin, Cork and Limerick. This area merits a good deal of attention from the Minister because, by definition, a protection racket must be secret, otherwise it would not work, but the symptoms of this sort of thing are there. My fear in relation to the Minister's proposals is that he will create a fertile breeding ground for these protection rackets.

I have discussed this matter with people who would know what the dangers are; it is not purely a personal thing. I have been assured that this Bill will damage these businesses and result in job losses. The Dublin City Centre Business Association are alarmed at the very real prospect of being unable to obtain fire and malicious damage cover for all their members if this Bill is passed. RGDATA say that six of their members have gone out of business because of problems with insurance recently. Shopping centres, neighbourhood shops and pubs have been forced to close because of burglary and vandalism. This critical situation will worsen if the Government's policy in this area is adopted. I appeal to the Minister to desist, to put this Bill aside, to leave it on the back burner and not to go ahead with it at this time.

In last night's Evening Press dated 11 June 1986 there was an article by Tom Brady, Security Correspondent, entitled “Shops Under Siege from Vandals”. In the morning papers yesterday there were similar headlines —“City Team Gangs on the Rampage”, “Shop Owners have Guns for Safety”. The Minister must have his head in the sand if he does not see the reality outside of this House. Surely he must realise that if he moves one of the few supports these people have the position can only get worse. This is not the time to introduce these measures. It is the time to give the Garda the support they need if they are to solve the problem of crime and vandalism.

There is an alternative to what the Minister is proposing. This problem will have to be tackled by the Government as a whole. I assume that the Minister is coming in here with the full support of his Cabinet. I find it incomprehensible that the Labour members of the Cabinet can support a measure like this. They know the people in these areas and how they are suffering at the moment from crime and vandalism. They know the pressure that is on the motorist. They know the schools and the boards of management and the people who are suffering. One has only to walk outside this House to see what is happening. Surely at least the Labour Party members know what is happening outside. Was this slipped through the Cabinet without really letting them know what was going on? Did the Minister omit to tell them all these facts at the Cabinet table? Did the Minister for Education get a hearing at the Cabinet Table?

How can the Labour Party support this measure which will place an increased burden on the ordinary working class people resulting in job losses and other difficulties for the people in those areas when they are already so hard pressed and when all the evidence is there that this measure will have an impact practically solely on those areas and only to a small extent elsewhere throughout the country. I fail to understand how the Labour Party can go along with this. I ask them to look hard at what they are doing here. Perhaps the Labour backbenchers did not have much opportunity to consider this in detail. Publicly it is being put across as being efficient and technical and rational. But at least when it is being debated here in the House there is an opportunity for all Members to recognise clearly what is happening here.

I appeal especially to members of the Labour Party on the Government side of the House to seriously consider what is now happening. I sit with members of that party on committees of the House and know their concern over the state of crime, lawlessness and vandalism which is prevalent in Dublin city, Cork and Limerick. I find it very hard to see how they can agree to this measure if they fully understand its implications. It is my job as Opposition spokesman to examine these implications in the House and that is what I am involved in this morning. When other Members have had an opportunity of contributing to this debate and considering what the Minister is planning to do here, I hope they will recognise this Bill for what it is, set it aside and not proceed any further. We will oppose this Bill vigorously and continuously because we know its purpose; its impact. We will have no hesitation in doing this. It indicates the root of the present problem. Instead of tackling realistically, honestly and seriously the existing difficulties, the Government are turning their back on them and only considering measures of this kind.

There is an alternative to the Government's approach. This alternative would include the provision of alternative educational programmes for young dropouts, and adequate policing, protection and security for schools, community centres, shopping centres, homes and businesses and other premises which are under siege. That is the duty of the Government in the first instance.

The problem of crime, vandalism and malicious damage can be overcome, but there is a price to pay and it must be paid. Negative policies like the present one fall heaviest on the poorer, more congested and less privileged areas in our society. The Minister's proposals will deal a crushing blow to people in these areas. Members of the Oireachtas have a duty to speak out against these clearly oppressive right wing policies.

I mentioned alternative approaches to educational programmes and there are already examples of these. The Youth Encounter Projects in Seán McDermott Street, Finglas and other areas point the way towards positive alternative national schools to cater for young dropouts aged ten plus. If one analyses any of the areas where vandalism occurs one will find that many young children who have dropped out of the school system — and on another occasion we can go into the reasons for this — in a high proportion could be involved otherwise. Surely investment in Youth Encounter Projects in the areas where they are most needed would have an immediate and beneficial effect. If the Minister takes the trouble to see how these projects are doing he will find that they are very successful and valuable projects, that they are working well and are having a positive effect on those young people and on society. They are taking the young people away from a life of crime and vandalism permanently. Of course, they cannot expect to be 100 per cent successful; nobody expects that. However, I can assure the Minister that these projects are being very helpful in the areas where they are established. I know that there are difficulties in getting some of these projects off the ground, but this type of approach will get to the root of the problem. It shows that the problem can be tackled in a practical and realistic way.

Employment and useful involvement in the life of the country will absorb many more of those young people who may otherwise be attracted to crime and vandalism. In addition, special policing arrangements and allocations must be provided to deal with the areas which are currently virtually under siege. There is a need for a new and different approach in the arrangement for policing to deal with the more serious elements of crime and vandalism. There are gangs of fairly young people constantly attacking local shops, shopping centres and such, running away and hiding, who cannot be pursued because there are not enough police. This cannot be allowed to continue. One cannot allow these shopping groups to be wiped out and to suffer as they are suffering at present. There is the alternative of providing the protection needed at present. Such problems are not very extensive. They occur in specific areas and the problem can be controlled if the Government provide the necessary resources.

The Garda are capable of fully tackling the present crime problem urgently if they have the resources and the priority commitment. They must have these. But new methods are needed to tackle urban crime. These should include special flexi-squads for surveillance and patrolling in the crime-ridden communities. This is not happening at present. The stop-go policies which are demonstrated by the on-off overtime situation show that the Government are not fully committed to tackling crime. It is not acceptable to withdraw resources from tackling urban crime to meet the Government's commitments to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Additional resources should have been provided by the Government to meet their policies for Border security.

The allocation for Garda overtime of £12 million for 1986 in effect has been plundered to meet the Taoiseach's extra Border commitments. As a result, Garda flexibility for the remainder of the year is severely restricted through overtime cut-backs. The Government should come clean now and seek the extra money needed to provide proper protection for both urban and rural areas. If the Government have some special requirements in relation to their agreements internationally, the funds and resources to meet these should not be taken from the resources which have to deal with fighting urban crime and which are already under strain.

For the first four months of this year the draw down on overtime was approximately £2 million per month and £½ million is left for the rest of the year. There is a drop to a quarter of the level at the beginning of the year. The original allocation was intended to cover Garda availability over the year as a whole, but we know that a major part of this has been used up through the commitments in relation to the Border. Surely the Government must give the Garda the flexibility to deal with urban crime and vandalism. The Minister admitted that he told the Garda Síochána that overtime was limited and must be cut back. He claims that there is some communication gap but, one way or other, very specific directives went out all over the country to stop overtime. The special technical bureau had no money for overtime to deal with the very urgent and practical problems which they faced. They were not able to go out at week-ends to deal with urgent matters. As a follow-on from the Minister's communication, specific directions were given to the Garda superintendents. Those directions had a very bad effect on the availability of gardaí for any of this work.

I am talking about crime and vandalism and this deals with compensation for crime, vandalism and damage. The Minister also spoke about this. That is what the compensation is for. Am I only to talk about the withdrawal of compensation? Can I not talk about what it is for, or what the alternatives are? Of course there are alternatives and of course, as Opposition spokesman, I have every right to talk about the alternatives. We will not accept what this Government stuff down our throats. This is not a question of newspaper handouts, at which the Government are particularly adept. It is a question of facing up to reality in the Oireachtas.

Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Donnellan)

The Deputy would not know how to do that.

Dr. Woods

The Minister of State should just sit there and keep the seat warm for the Minister until either he or she gets back.

Mr. Donnellan

I will do that.

Dr. Woods

New methods are needed to tackle urban crime. These must include real support for the Garda. This is not happening. At present the policies are accentuating this problem of crime and vandalism, the policies of not having gardaí available in a flexible way to tackle crime. The Government have failed to protect the people in urban and rural Ireland. The effect of this Bill will be to penalise and further burden the hard-pressed crime ridden community. This is a very serious matter and I want the House to take it seriously. I am not prepared to see it swept under the carpet or passed by without too much comment.

The Bill will increase the cost of insurance premiums to cover the risk of damage to property by crime and vandalism. While there will be savings for the Exchequer, there will be no saving for the general public. This is ironic given the fact that one of the reasons advanced by the Government for the abolition of the right to trial by jury in civil cases was the desirability of reducing insurance premiums. Only a short number of days later the Government are coming in here with a measure which will positively, directly and immediately increase the cost of insurance premiums. The explanatory memorandum to this Bill does not explain why the right to compensation is retained in certain circumstances. The Minister spent a good deal of time on that subject.

The circumstances set out in the Bill appear to be risks against which the insurance industry did not usually offer cover. However, there is no evidence that the Government have conducted an empirical analysis of the risks to property caused by criminal acts against which it is difficult or impossible to insure. Has the Minister for Justice asked the insurance industry for a list of such risks or for any indication of the circumstances in which it is prohibitive to obtain such cover? An analysis of these risks would give a rational basis for maintaining the right to compensation in certain circumstances. A person who cannot afford to insure his property against criminal acts will lose the right to compensation. This has serious implications for traders and other owners of property and for those parts of the State affected by serious crime. In particular traders will be obliged to pay prohibitive premia or run the risk of losing their means of livelihood. The Bill does not represent a principled approach to the question of when the State should compensate the victims of crime.

It is agreed on all sides that the malicious injuries code has outlived its original purpose of levying on the ratepayers of a given locality compensation for malicious damage to property. It is regrettable that the Government did not take this opportunity of putting into statutory form the scheme for the compensation of personal injuries caused by acts of criminal violence. I referred to that scheme earlier on.

I want to return to some of those points. The Government have already displayed their lack of compassion towards these victims of crime by abolishing compensation for pain and suffering in such cases. This Bill creates a further category of victim of crime who cannot obtain compensation. This comprises persons who cannot afford to insure their property against malicious acts. One cannot expect the State to compensate the victims of all criminal damage. However, this Bill, if not withdrawn, should at the minimum be amended to ensure that a person who is unable to obtain insurance cover against the risk of malicious damage to his property at a reasonable rate should be entitled to compensation. The jurisdiction to award compensation to those who suffer personal injuries or damage to property by criminal acts should be vested in a statutory tribunal. The State must recognise its responsibility to protect its citizens from crime and vandalism and to make provision for the victims where normal insurance cover cannot be obtained.

Therefore, why did the Minister not take the opportunity at this time to make statutory provision for personal injuries and to consider a statutory tribunal to cover both areas? As the Minister has said, the local authorities will be very happy to be relieved of the first 20p which they have to cover in relation to this area. This is the carrot for the local authorities. The Minister in his speech said in relation to the local authorities: "The decision of the Government will, I have no doubt, be welcome news to all local authorities". The Minister pointed out the provision he has made in relation to recouping their costs. He is planning to recoup their legal costs also. The Minister goes on to say:

The Minister said that this has been debated considerably and the Government favour the continued involvement of local authorities for very much the same reasons as was advanced previously when the Bill was discussed in 1981. In support of this argument the Minister said that he envisages very few hearings arising under the amended scheme. Of course, there will be very few hearings because he is virtually abolishing the scheme. The Minister is not giving anybody anything. He is just abolishing the scheme. It does not matter too much which way it is done if there are so few hearings. The Minister goes on to say:

... the removal of responsibility from local authorities in respect of the very restricted scheme now proposed would hardly effect significant savings to them.

That is quite true. How could it? The Minister tells us quite clearly what he is talking about. If one comes back afterwards to him one cannot say that he did not in an indirect way say that this scheme was going to be virtually for nobody, that it was going to be extremely restricted and that the vast majority of people will be excluded. The carrot he puts up is that the Bill gives total relief to local authorities as regards compensation and legal costs. It was not very hard for the Minister to do that. He is not being very big about it. He puts it forward as a special relief to the local authorities. It was not hard for him to do so because, as he said there will be very few hearings in a very restricted scheme.

The local authorities in looking to the central Exchequer to pick up the burden of the scheme would not be seeking the total abolition of compensation for people in their areas. Is the Minister suggesting that Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation would welcome the abolition of compensation for Dublin's inner city and for industrial estates, shopping centres and schools throughout the length and breadth of Dublin city and county? Their view would have been that they would like to see the burden taken by the central Exchequer. There is no burden when we are finished here. There is nothing left. No one is going to pay for anything. The person who is the victim of crime is going to be a victim. That is tough luck. That is the style we are getting and the Minister is very open and honest about it. He said that it will bring our law in this area more into line with England. That is what his proposal is about.

I find it very hard to see how the Labour Party can support this measure. The Minister said in his speech and it confirms what I have said:

In 1979 the total cost of malicious damage claims, including that portion of claims borne by local authorities, was £3.5 million. The cost of claims relating to 1985 was just under £20 million.

That is more than a sixfold increase since 1979. Would it not be lovely to go back to the levels of crime and vandalism we had in 1979? Why does the Minister not take that as his objective, to try to get back to the days of 1979 when crime and vandalism——

Mr. Kelly

When there were bank robberies for weeks on end.

Dr. Woods

Is the Deputy saying there were many bank robberies?

Mr. Kelly

There were at least one or two a day.

Dr. Woods

That is exactly why the Special Task Force were set up and that is why those bank robberies throughout the country were absolutely wiped out. It is a classical example of what the Garda Síochána can do if we give them the resources. What I am saying here today is give the Garda Síochána similar opportunities to do a similar job for urban crime. I am very glad the Deputy brought the matter to my attention because the Chair might have been worried about my bringing up those kind of matters from 1979.

(Interruptions.)

Dr. Woods

I am talking about the Minister's figures here. I do not think the Deputy opposite understands what is happening here. Those bank robberies in 1979 were high profile, very serious, subversive type robberies carried out throughout the country in which a number of members of the Garda Síochána were killed. They warranted serious and dramatic action on the part of the Government and the Garda. Just as I am sure Deputy Kelly would have said, the Garda were asked: "What do you need to deal with this situation? It is not good enough that this can continue around the country" The Government replied: "Whatever it is, it is there for you. Just get the job done." That is what happened at that time. They did get the job done and overcame that problem.

Mr. Kelly

Not in 1979.

Dr. Woods

There were two squads set up, one in 1978 and one in 1980, the special task force and the divisional task force, the divisional task force having been set under way in 1980. That kind of action at national level in relation to that type of major bank robbery, in association with pressures on the banks and other bodies to tighten up their security and make their contribution, was very successful afterwards. That is the kind of action that should not be a political matter. I hope that is the type of action Members on all sides of the House would support.

We are now dealing with the special incidence of urban crime. I am talking about the Minister's figures when he said:

In 1979 the total cost of malicious damage claims, including that portion of claims borne by local authorities, was £3.5 million. The cost of claims relating to 1985 was just under £20 million.

I took the three years from 1982 when I found there was a three-fold increase, whereas the Minister, in preparing his figures, went back somewhat further to 1979. There has been an enormous increase in the incidence of urban crime and vandalism, these figures being the principal indicators of that increase. I appeal to the Minister to give the Garda the resources necessary to tackle this specific type of urban crime. Perhaps the garda could initiate special flexi-squads, special mission groups or whatever one likes to call them, who will have the time, available resources, unlimited over-time——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair considers that it is quite in order for Deputy Woods to make reference to the Garda and to say that the matter should be handed over to them. I do not think it is in order to go into the nuts and bolts of how the Garda should do it. That is a matter for another Estimate and another day.

Dr. Woods

It should be remembered that we are talking about people here, not just a malicious damages scheme. We are talking about people who make claims under the provisions of the scheme and the way they are affected. When I meet them their argument is that they are not being protected at present, that that is why they make so many claims. The Minister's argument this morning is that such claims are growing out of all proportion and becoming a very big demand on the Exchequer. I suggest to the Minister that the reason that is so is the present extent of urban crime.

When I talk to shopkeepers, school management boards or whoever — and it should be remembered that these are the people who will bear the increases arising directly from the provisions of this Bill — they say to me: "The Garda are very pleasant, very helpful. They send someone along. They send more patrols around." They do not have the flexibility or manpower to deal adequately with the situation covered by the compensation provided under this scheme. They contend it is not working for them, that they are not getting the type of protection they need. Deputy Kelly interjected in relation to 1979 to point out that there were extensive robberies throughout the country at that time, that I should not suggest that there was a time of peace. The figures the Minister has given here show that was a time when malicious injuries claims were at a very low level relative to the present day. That fact is borne out by the figures the Minister has given — £3.5 million in 1979 as against £20 million in 1985.

Mr. Kelly

The Deputy is not right in taking four or five years when inflation was running at 20 per cent to 25 per cent over which his party in Government presided.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Kelly will have an opportunity to contribute later.

Dr. Woods

Do I have to cite the crime statistics to illustrate to the Deputy the way crime peaked in 1983 when there were over 100,000 indictable crimes which came down by approximately 2.5 per cent in 1984?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is relevant only in so far as it involves damage to property giving rise to malicious injuries. We cannot have a whole debate on——

Mr. Kelly

We have been listening to an Estimates speech on the Department of Justice by Deputy Woods for the past two hours.

Dr. Woods

Dr. Woods

The Garda should be given the resources and flexibility that they need to deal with this. If that means we have to have special squads with no limits set on overtime, then that is what has to be done. Surely that is short enough and simple enough for anyone who is listening. However, if no one is listening and if the Government have turned their backs on this, then what is to be done? Week in and week out the Minister has said that there is no problem. Today he came in and said that urban crime had increased sevenfold. He said it is costing money. That is why he is worried about it. For the first time recently he has admitted that there is a problem. I must be free to comment on that.

It may be upsetting for people who are not living with this problem all the time to listen to what I am saying. I can understand that. However, it is very hard to understand how the Minister can come in and deliver such a short speech. It was more like a press release than a speech. The House deserves more than that. There are many aspects of this question which deserve greater consideration and discussion.

The Minister gave a global figure for the cost of compensation. For Dublin County Council the amount was £4.7 million. That figure was not given in the Minister's short speech, which told us about terrorism, aeroplanes and ships — all very interesting in themselves but things which have very little to do with the cost of the scheme. The Minister said it would have very little effect in cost terms. That is true because the Minister is leaving everything out. The figure for Dublin Corporation in 1985 was £7.9 million. Going on the figures for 1982, Cork is the next area followed by Limerick. The Minister did not tell us anything about that.

As regards business, the Minister said that in August 1984 the Government announced, as one of a number of measures aimed at reducing public expenditure, the termination of the malicious injuries scheme. I have copies of letters which were sent from insurers to business people which were in fact endorsements on their policies. The endorsement, dated 1 July 1985 and received on 16 July 1985, was entitled, "Malicious Damage Endorsement" and stated that if during the currency of the policy the right of the insured to compensation for malicious damage to property was removed or diminished as a result of the repeal or amendment of the Malicious Injuries Act, 1981, the company reserved 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 business community have been forced to face up to what is going on. This legislation will be very damaging. The Minister avoided that issue in his speech.

It is interesting to note the contents of the Fifth Report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Small Businesses. The chairman of that body is Fine Gael Deputy Ivan Yates while the vice-chairman is Fianna Fáil Senator Michael Lynch. I should like to congratulate that committee on the comprehensive nature of their report. Members of that committee were very concerned about the burden of property insurance in high risk areas. They felt the cost of this 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 those areas. The committee saw the right of businesses to property insurance in those 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 those areas and the urban renewal incentives announced by the Government in October 1985.

It is possible that the Deputy did not have anything as important to speak about.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Kelly is being far from helpful with his interruptiosn.

Dr. Woods

Any time I prepare to conclude my contribution Deputy Kelly tries to have a go at me. The Bill must be opposed vigorously. Various groups, including the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Small Businesses, have suggested that the Government should adopt the positive measures before pressing ahead with this legislation but they have not listened to those groups. The measures suggested would reduce the demand for compensation. I have suggested that the Garda be given all the resources they require to carry out their duties. If that is done the level of compensation will be different. If that level is reduced we will have to approach this in a different manner.

I am not worried whether the Chair or Deputy Kelly are particularly happy with me. To me, that is largely irrelevant. I will try to keep in order in so far as I can. The great relevancy here are the people who want me to speak out in this House about the effects of this Bill on them. Deputy Kelly and others come in to talk about all sorts of issues which come from boardrooms and cocktail parties. This comes right from the streets, from the ground, from the people who have most been affected. That is what I am sent here to Dáil Éireann for. It is my duty to do my utmost to try to ensure that this Bill will not pass. When the Government tried to have it run through quickly today I expressed total opposition to it. This is too fundamental and important, and crime is too expensive. So is vandalsm. I am not prepared to stand by while the Government turn their back on the victims of crime. They have not heard the last from me, I can assure them. This is a scandalous act of the Government. The second part of it is not the personal injuries but the damage to property. It is when you look at these things in the light of the other actions being taken by the Government that you can see how damaging these proposals are and why we will oppose them so strongly.

Mr. Kelly

In case Deputy Woods now feels ready for his lunch, let me say before he goes out the door that I am sorry I have shown impatience. It is not from any feeling that what I have to say is of great importance, but probably my low boredom threshold at the endless repetition of a very small number of points, not all of which I disagree with.

It would have been useful if the Minister and Deputy Woods had begun by recalling for the House the history of the malicious injuries system. The entire malicious injuries code in Ireland was an engine for keeping the Peep-o'-Day Boys, the Whiteboys and other perpetrators of local outrages in their places. It was a primitive engine of government, of remote Anglo-Saxon origin, which the British in more modern times never applied in their own country but which they applied here, with the idea that if they could stick the inhabitants of localities with liability for malicious injuries caused in their districts it would make them, as it were, police themselves, enforce on them the necessity for a certain self-policing, "neighbourhood watch" system, as it is called today.

Therefore, the neighbourhood watch is not a new idea. It goes back to the times of Queen Anne, and before that Charles II and Edward IV or thereabouts. That system of malicious injury compensation was intended to force on people a kind of neighbourhood watch: they were forced to carry a vicarious liability, an imputed responsibility for crime committed in their own districts, and they were made to pay for that crime if they did not make damn sure that whoever was likely to commit it was kept in his place or got rid of in some other way.

That system, in the time when I was in practice and until more recently, caused many anomalies which the legislation of 1981 got rid of and which this legislation, wisely, is continuing to get rid of. For example, because of the criminal nature of these offences and their origin in criminal law, all the ordinary ideas of criminal law inhered in it, so that, for example, in order to achieve an award for malicious injury one had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and not merely on the "balance of probabilities" which is the standard of proof in civil cases, that the damage or the injury was malicious. That meant that children did not come into the scope of the thing because they were not capable of malice. It meant as well that the local authority could not compromise or settle a malicious injury application, in the same way that a criminal prosecution cannot be compromised.

These archaisms and anomalies have been got rid of. They burdened localities with the paying of compensation. That, to a large extent, has been got rid of by the assumption by the State of the liability in the form of reimbursing local authorities.

The old system had ludicrous anomalies built into it. I remember being in a case in Kildare — I forget which side I was appearing for, the county council or the applicant — in which CIE were suing Kildare County Council in a malicious injury application for vandalism which CIE said had been committed in a train as it passed through County Kildare. It was a non-stop express train carrying football supporters to Cork from Dublin, or vice versa; but, merely because the inspector on the train thought he was able to show that it was in the neighbourhood of Sallins or Newbridge that the damage had been caused, the ratepayers of County Kildare were expected to make good the loss to CIE.

These anomalies have been done away with, but there remains at the heart of the system the idea that the people at large must be made to pay for crimes committed in their midst. The anomalies are mostly gone, there is no longer the local charge or levy, but there remains at the heart of the system the idea that everybody else has to carry the can financially for a malicious act. Were it not for that system, rooted in a British mechanism for keeping us down, or, at any rate, the more unruly of us, the very same rule would apply to malicious damage as to accidents — that the loss lies where it falls. That is one of the ills that flesh is heir to: as a general rule in life, misfortune, accident or a malicious act committed against you, if it causes you loss or illness or anything else, the loss lies where it falls, and it is difficult to shift it.

Two elements in modern life have the effect of shifting a liability and reducing its impact on an individual. One is the social legislation of modern states, which I fully support. I am not trying to decry a compassionate structure of social legislation which would help people who need help and who are not in a position to help themselves. The other system is insurance; and that is a far preferable system except, of course, that there are people who are below the financial level which would allow them to insure themselves. The best point Deputy Woods made, and I had hoped he would stick to it, and his speech would have been worth listening to, was that there will be people caught between two stools, even in this legislation, who will not be able to insure against malicious damage because no company will take them on or will take on certain types of risk to which certain people are chronically exposed.

Social legislation on the one hand and insurance on the other have mitigated the general human condition, because in a whole range of connections the loss no longer now lies where it falls. It has to be the job of the State to keep its share of that burden to the minimum. The State is not a new party appearing on the scene: the State represents the people, and when the State puts its hand in its pocket it is the people who have to pay for it. Deputy Woods omitted to call attention to the fact that the system as we have had it, which this Bill proposes largely to do away with, meant that the risk, which is incidental to ownership of all property, was not borne by the owners of the property, not even in the form of insurance premiums, but was spread over the community at large so as to encompass people who have no property, who do not have cars to be vandalised or homes to be broken into or business premises to be looted. They, too, had to carry their mite of the compensation under the system which still survives to this day as a legacy of the way the British ran this country.

I regard that as wrong and I think I could work up as much social indignation against it, though I do not think I could carry it for two hours as Deputy Woods did. For the life of me I cannot see why if somebody is able to insure against a risk he should not be expected to do so. Why should somebody who is far less well off, who is not a property owner in any serious sense, whose office or house does not contain anything worth stealing, have to carry through VAT or through other indirect taxation or through PAYE even a small part of the loss which a property owner endures if his property is vandalised or maliciously set on fire and which he might himself have insured against adequately?

It is important for the State to look at itself critically, identify the functions which it is now carrying, which it should not have to carry and which can be more effectively and fairly carried by property owners insuring against risks. It is fair that property owners should insure their own risks, the risks that are inherent in property. The State should look at the matter more drastically and ask where else is there an area in which people can do for themselves — and probably more efficiently — something that bureaucracy is now required to do for them.

The idea that is inarticulately at the root of what Deputy Woods was saying is that the State has a kind of moral obligation to compensate everyone and in all kinds of conditions. He did not say that, but from the uncritical attitude he displayed to this theme one must assume that would be his point of view. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this expectation that the State will carry the can for everyone is widespread. It extends even to disappointed holidaymakers, and not just because of the collapse of a firm here or through anything happening in the sphere of control of our own Government; it goes much further. In passing, I will give the House an illustration of what I mean by the expectation that the State will be an unpaid insurer — because the State has not collected any premiums related to this particular risk.

I got a couple of letters last month from constituents of mine about a certain matter. By no means am I trying to belittle them or to make fun of them: I sympathise with them because they have suffered a misfortune. Their letters stated that they had booked holidays in Yugoslavia, and in the weeks following the accident at Chernobyl they thought it would be safer not to go to Yugoslavia. I agree completely with them: I would not have gone there myself, and I would not have advised my family or friends to do so. Unfortunately, they had irrevocably booked their holiday that had now gone by the board, and they wanted the Minister for Finance to compensate them. They did not ask for compensation from the Soviet Minister for Finance, or that this State might sponsor a claim against the Soviet Union for disappointed expectations on the part of holidaymakers. They wanted our Minister for Finance to compensate them for the loss. I have every sympathy with the people concerned and I do not mention their case in order to criticise them; I do so merely to illustrate how widespread is the public expectation that the State will carry the can for everyone. In my experience that has been the outside limit; but perhaps other Deputies have even more outlandish examples to give.

The basis of the Minister's idea is perfectly correct, that risks that are insurable should be insured. At this moment insurance companies are collecting premiums for risks which include malicious damage. It may be that these premiums are calculated on the expectation that in cases of malicious damage they can force their policyholders to bring an application against the local authority, and effectively against the State, and recoup themselves so that in the end they do not have to pay the damage. Deputy Woods made a fair point — even though he did it 25 times — in saying that insurance premiums are bound to go up if the companies are stuck with the full cost of claims that the State will no longer be able to meet legally after passage of this Bill.

Insurance companies accept premiums for this kind of risk and they will have to pay claims in the future. I suppose that will increase premiums, but that is part of what life is about. Politicians are wickedly wrong to encourage people in the idea that the State will bear all costs. The State must have a role in supervising the levels of insurance premiums so that they do not become exorbitant or usurious, but the idea that the State must provide a safety net so that the insurance premium, soberly calculated on a particular risk, cannot overstep a certain point and if it does that the State will take up the slack, is quite wrong. I do not care who is involved, whether it be a young motorcyclist, a certain category of driver or anyone else. Anyone engaging in a particular occupation must start from the assumption that they are willing to take responsibility for insuring themselves against the risks incidental to that occupation.

The Minister began frankly by saying that the reason for the legislation was to curtail public expenditure, to save public money. What is so shameful about that? Why should he be expected by Deputy Woods to apologise for that? That is what Deputy Woods called "naked Thatcherism." Have we lost touch with reality altogether, that a Minister or Government are to be faulted for trying to see where the people's money can be saved? It is not Deputy Dukes's money or Deputy Fennell's money. It is not the money of anyone on the Government side: it is the people's money. The absolute limit that can be saved this year is £20 million, because obviously some claims will still have to be met by the State. However, that money seems like peanuts to Deputy Woods, peanuts so far as saving to that State is concerned, but it appears to be fraught with disaster so far as industry, commerce and schools are concerned. I do not think that £20 million is peanuts, even though it may be a contemptible sum to a party who can throw their weight behind a dud airport which costs only half that amount, an airport that is a particularly gruesome example——

An Ceann Comhairle

We do not want to get into the nuts and bolts of that matter.

Mr. Kelly

The State has plenty of white elephants but one does not usually discover their colour or their species until they are fully grown. This was a white elephant before it was ever conceived and was designed to be a white elephant.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputy to continue with that matter.

Mr. Briscoe

There was a naughty cartoon in The Irish Times about an elephant.

Mr. Kelly

A party who think it is all right to throw their weight behind something of that kind obviously are in no condition of mind to exercise a sober judgement about a trifling sum of £20 million. I do not expect any better standards from them and I will not pursue that matter. To me £20 million is a lot of money and it could provide many jobs in my constituency, even though it is not in the deprived category or anything like that. Nevertheless, there are many ways in which I could spend that amount of public money in my constitutency tomorrow, and the Minister of State who shares it with me knows that to be true.

The absolute limit that can be saved this year is £20 million; but to call what the Government are proposing "naked Thatcherism" is so babyish and irresponsible that it makes one despair of what will happen if this side do not win the next election. God knows, I have plenty of fault to find with the kind of schemes we are driven into by our comrades over here on the left, and I do not stand over everything this Government have felt obliged to do. However, there is a least some level of sense and responsibility in the Government somewhere. Where will the country be if we are run by a Government who think it is "naked Thatcherism" to save £20 million, most of which can be funded from insurance sources?

I will tell you where those cries of naked Thatcherism will lead to. They are going to lead this country into naked Castroism. This State will simply collapse under the weight of the burdens which are thrust on it by politicians so hungry to spend their declining years in power — most of them are not in their first youth, indeed are far from it — that they would promise anything. This Government which I am glad to support — to put it no higher than that if only when I look across at the alternative, and no offence to the two gentlemen opposite — started out with a programme of economy. A lot of fun was made of fiscal rectitude. A number of trivial commentators who never had to run anything outside their own houses or families made a lot of play that we were setting out to run an economy and not a people, as though they had never heard of James Connolly's dictum that a country without its people was nothing. The economy and the people are co-extensive in the context with which politicians have to deal. We are trying to manage the people's economy. This Government started out on a programme of restraining public expenditure, or reducing the public deficit and of limiting foreign borrowing; but they got stick from day one for their "naked Thatcherism," for their hard-heartedness, for turning their back on this and that. Yet, when we look at the figures what have the Government succeeded in achieving after all that blood, sweat and tears?

Mr. B. Ahern

Nothing.

Mr. Kelly

I am sorry to say that is almost true. Something has been achieved in terms of the percentage of the borrowing requirement and the national debt as a percentage of GNP. But there is no denying that the level of public borrowing has inexorably gone up in spite of all the efforts of the Thatcherites over here, in spite of all the stick we have taken and all the votes we have lost. What would happen if we ever got down to real cutting of public expenditure if there is such whinging and cringing about £20 million which can obviously be saved by placing it where it belongs, with the insurance system? I depair of what will happen to this place. The Deputies opposites know in their hearts what I am talking about. I get dejected when I find the way this very sensible reform is being looked at. This is a very small reform measured against the scale of the problem we have to deal with, and Deputies opposite will have to deal with it if the Government should ever change. The scale of the problem is so horrible and terrifying that a contribution like we heard this morning about "naked Thatcherism" makes me despair.

Before I leave the subject of Deputy Woods and naked Thatcherism, since he is Fianna Fáil's Front Bench spokesman on this subject, would he come back into the House to tell us if he will undertake the repeal of this measure if he is in Government in a year's time or in five year's time? Could we have from the Fianna Fáil Party, who are so bitter and determined in their opposition to this reasonable measure, a firm, clear undertaking that they will repeal this measure if they are in Government? I do not mean an undertaking which would be comparable in clarity and unequivocal character with their attitude to the divorce referendum; I mean something an honest man can understand. Will they or will they not repeal this measure when they get in? Deputy Woods did not tell us, but perhaps some other authorised spokesman will tell us before the debate ends. If we pass this Bill and if Fianna Fáil get in at the next election, will they definitely undertake to repeal this legislation? If they do we will then be back to the old British system of keeping down the Whiteboys and the Peep-o'-Day Boys, and we will be back to this system which this Bill seeks to abolish.

I do not represent an inner city area and I do not claim the knowledge of an inner city area which Deputy Woods has, but I listened this morning to what he had to say about dereliction, the social breakdown and disorganisation of the inner city areas. I did not know the actual percentage figures which Deputy Woods provided, but a large proportion of the malicious award applications originate in the Dublin 1 and Dublin 2 areas. He gave a very striking figure and I accept it as correct, although I cannot check it. The problems of the inner city area and the malicious destruction associated with it will not be solved by doubling or tripling the police force, or tripling overtime. These problems were not caused by defective policing in the first place. These problems of urban dislocation are very complex. I agree that the roots of these problems have a very intimate connection with this Bill because a high proportion of this expenditure is spent on malicious injuries claims. It is not the lack of policing which caused these problems, it is a combination of things, of which defective planning is undoubtedly one - defective industrial planning and, above all, defective town planning. If you allow huge "amenity-less" suburbs to stretch up the hills and shift the people from the inner city to the suburbs, that may be one of the main causes of social disorganisation not just in this country but all over the world. There is inadequate planning, an unwillingness to redesign on the spot, to try to revive areas instead of shifting the population elsewhere, allowing planning blight to strike, allowing half the buildings to fall down and to be turned into car parks——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not supposed to go into a detailed explanation.

Mr. Kelly

I accept that. I only wanted to rebut the idea that it was defective policing which had caused this problem. The blight which struck the centre of this city has been going on since the war. I do not think either side is free from blame. Neither Deputy Woods nor anybody else on the other side should say that the ballooning of vandalism which has made this Bill necessary is in some way due to the default of this side.

I want to raise another point which might be more appropriate for Committee Stage but it might be more useful to advert to it briefly now in case the Minister thinks there is any substance in it. Section 8 provides that:

Where property which is unlawfully taken after the passing of this Act and in respect of which compensation is paid under the Acts is recovered, the Minister for the Environment shall become and be the owner of the property and may, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, dispose of it in such manner as he thinks fit.

I presume that means that, if there is a break-in and something valuable is taken, if the owner is given monetary compensation and the property is afterwards recovered, it is vested in the Minister for the Environment. I am not happy with that unfortunate provision. I hope I am right in taking it for granted that the average Minister for the Environment would behave reasonably and would return that property to the person to whom it belonged in return for the reimbursement of the monetary compensation. It would be far better if the Bill were to say this. My suggestion — unless there are objections to it which I cannot foresee — is that the Minister for the Environment should have a lien or some form of interest in the recovered property, but that the property should not be divested from its owner. You cannot change the ownership of an object by stealing it. Nobody can confer a better title than he has. If my property is stolen it still remains my property even after I have been given compensation for its theft. This proposal, if that property is recovered, is to make the Minister owner of that property. If what we are talking about is an artefact of no special value or sentimental importance to me, like a motor car, a stereo set or something like that, it does not matter.

However, suppose it has some special importance for me, such that I would rather have the thing back than have the money which perhaps does not really compensate me for it, something of personal sentimental importance or of artistic value or something which is integral to the arrangements of my house or whatever it may be, I think this is an unfortunate provision. I would prefer the Minister to look again at this section and consider whether, if he insists on keeping this section as it is, it should have a further subsection providing that, notwithstanding what is contained in the immediately preceding subsection, the Minister for the Environment — or whatever Minister — shall on restitution to him of the amount paid in compensation, restore to its owner the property in question.

I said that was the last thing I wanted to say, but it was the second last. The last thing I want to say is that there is substance in what Deputy Woods said about the cases which will be caught between two stools by this legislation. I can see that there will be traders in the very rundown areas he was describing who will no longer be able to look to an official source for compensation but whom equally an insurance company will not want to touch with a barge-pole because of the inherently high risk of their property. That is a fair point. The Minister and his Department might examine this again to see whether some system might be devised, perhaps related specifically to certain areas, in which it will be possible for the State in some modest way to come to the assistance of people in this category; although obviously, if such a solution were adopted and if it were too open, there would be the danger that it would induce insurance companies in all cases to say: "We cannot insure this; we cannot insure that", and thus effectively thrust the risk back on to the State. The point had not occurred to me until I heard Deputy Woods raise it. It seems to have substance and the Minister would do well to look at it to see whether anything can be done to meet it. If he were to do that and to look also at the point I made on section 8, I can see no reason not to support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. J. Leonard

On reading through this Bill I am concerned, as I have been over the past five years, about the number of anomalies particularly as they relate to my area. I would like to mention two matters: claims for compensation and a superintendent's authority to issue certificates.

In May 1981 during the H-Block campaign the courthouse in Monaghan was burned to the ground. The Garda Síochána superintendent duly certified the burning as damage attributable to the troubles in Northern Ireland. There is an anomaly. Due to a technicality a local authority cannot claim against themselves under the Malicious Injuries Acts. Had the courthouse been the property of the urban council, the urban council could have claimed from the county council. Consistently over the past five years since that courthouse was burned, by way of Parliamentary Question and representations to the Departments of Justice and Finance, we have endeavoured to have this unfairness eliminated so that we would not be saddled with the burden of restoring that courthouse out of our meagre funding. To give an idea of what is involved, that courthouse is in the course of being reconstructed and at the last meeting of the county council we had to move an estimate for an additional £1 million from the loans fund to finance this reconstruction. We had the building covered by insurance, but the foundations, the pillars, the walls, the services and so on were badly damaged and we got very poor compensation.

I have claimed continuously that had this happened to any such building in this city, or in some other cities within the State, legislation would have been brought in forthwith to ensure that the people in that area would not be saddled with the massive expenditure which we were saddled with due to an anomaly in the Act and the fact that we could not claim against the county council. That is really unfair, and there is nothing in the measure before us to provide that the situation will be rectified, despite the fact that we have continuously badgered the Departments about this and appealed to their sense of fair play and for provision of funding.

The Department of Justice asked us to provide additional accommodation in the new structure. We have been without a courtroom there for five years because of the vandalism and burning of that place, and, as I said, the superintendent certified it as attributable to the problems in the North at that time. We have been five years without a courtroom and now the Department of Justice say they want an additional courtroom and additional facilities, all of which we must provide in a county which is facing a scarcity of funding and has no great way of raising additional funding.

My second point is that in that troubled week the house of Lord Rossmore adjacent to the town of Monaghan, was burned. In that house was a massive collection of valuable and irreplaceable items which he had removed some years previously when he was demolishing the castle. The claim in respect of that was £250,000 plus expenses. The Garda Síochána superintendent in that case would not provide a certificate that the damage was due to problems related to Northern Ireland. The result was that Monaghan County Council were saddled with that claim. Admittedly the total cost was £300,000 and we were reimbursed to the extent of about £230,000 from the Department, but it cost us £70,000 which we could ill afford to spend.

The Bill provides that the superintendent can certify damage but does not provide for the right of appeal. We in County Monaghan had no right of appeal because the superintendent refused to provide that certificate. As public representatives we were of the opinion that the case was similar to that of Monaghan courthouse where a certificate was forthcoming. I am greatly concerned that the superintendent could refuse to provide a certificate and so prevent us from availing of funding under that system of payment, and we had no right of appeal or even to bring that case to the Ombudsman. I will ask our spokesman to put down amendments on Committee Stage to try to remove those anomalies which have had such a serious effect on the area which I represent. One would think that the Government would give them the recognition they deserve instead of saddling them with additional expense due to shortcomings in existing legislation.

The Minister said that local authorities have also been concerned at the burden imposed by payment of their own legal costs as a result of defending successful claims. I agree with this, because I know of a claim for damage to property which went to the District Court for settlement. The court awarded £50, the parties concerned appealed it and were awarded £75. That case cost Monaghan County Council £3,000 or £4,000, which is ridiculous, and I hope it will never happen again.

The Minister also said that under the new arrangements damage to property will be compensatable in three circumstances: first, where the damage is caused during a riot; second, where it results from an act committed maliciously by an unlawful organisation as defined in the Offences Against the State Act, 1939; and, third, where it results from an act committed maliciously by an organisation from outside the State which is engaged in violence for purposes related to the conduct or administration of the affairs of the State or of Northern Ireland.

We have a number of cross-Border bridges where arterial drainage is being carried out. There are three bridges in a ten-mile span between two clearance posts along the Border. The river forms the Border and the bridges are in north Monaghan, between the Middletown customs clearance station and Aughnacloy. They were rendered impassable by the Northern Ireland security forces and have been unusable for many years. Monaghan County Council felt that they should be replaced or compensation paid in lieu. The drainage scheme to which I referred is being carried out by the authorities North and South under a FEOGA grant from the EC. People in the area were delighted, because at present they have to walk across the river on planks and no vehicular traffic can use the bridges. In accordance with the Anglo-Irish Agreement, all lines of communication should be open and those bridges restored. We are now told by the Office of Public Works that they do not propose to restore them because, due to the damage inflicted, they would have to demolish them. They also said that it was a matter for the security forces in the North and the road authorities on both sides of the Border. People should not be deprived of amenities because of where they live and the fact that there has been trouble in their area.

The Office of Public Works say that they do not have any money but that they might provide a pedestrian crossing on the bridge similar to that in operation at present.

The Minister also mentioned that local authorities up to now had to pay 20p in the pound for compensation as a result of malicious injuries. I welcome the fact that this will no longer apply because there have been many demands in my constituency which result in costly claims. Most other counties were paying much less because they did not have the same number of claims to process. The Minister also mentioned the continued involvement of local authorities in regard to malicious injuries claims, and I welcome this because it would be ridiculous to set up a separate structure to operate them. It is right to use the present legal and technical staff of the county council in this regard.

Deputy Woods mentioned the amount of damage done to churches, schools and community centres. I am concerned that under the Bill there could be an additional burden on school authorities and community organisations, because most of these amenities are run on a voluntary basis and the organisations concerned are finding it very difficult to meet running costs. Their insurance costs have soared in recent years and I hope that those voluntary organisations will still be in a position to meet their commitments. During the Estimates meetings in Monaghan County Council a list of itemised claims was laid before us.

The number of claims for vehicles and derelict property leads one to believe that it is due to carelessness, to people not protecting their property properly themselves. The responsibility to protect their property should rest with the citizens. It is ridiculous to see claims being paid out on property, the windows and doors of which may have been left open by irresponsible people so that the premises were easily accessible. The same thing happens with vehicles. Insurance companies should introduce some form of bonus system for people who make an all out effort to secure and protect their property.

There are serious anomalies particularly in the areas I mentioned. I believe they can be rectified in the course of dealing with the Bill and I hope they will be.

Mr. Yates

I do not wish to make too lengthy an intervention in this debate but I feel I must make a few comments on it.

In 1984 the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Small Businesses completed a major study on the retail and distribution sectors which tend to be the highest claiming sectors for malicious damages. Earlier this year we completed a major report on the insurance difficulties of small firms which include property related insurance. From the many submissions I received I have some knowledge of the subject.

The decision to repeal the malicious injuries legislation of 1981 and previous legislation was announced in the national plan in August 1984. In Dublin and urban areas across the country we have seen an explosion in the crime rate. In the Garda Commissioner's report we see that there has been a dramatic increase in personal and malicious damages. In 1978, for example, the national figure was 1,009. This shot up to 1,862 cases reported in 1982 and, in 1984, 2,655 cases were reported. That is an increase, between 1978 and 1984, of 163 per cent in cases of arson and malicious damages. In the small business community, particularly in urban and built up urban areas, there is a feeling of total helplessness and frustration with the existing level of crime. We are not talking about pilfering which is also a major problem. We are just talking about breaking and entering and the damage done to the premises. We have seen a huge growth in private security arrangements both in the form of personnel and of steel plating through walls and so on and this has not resulted in an abatement of these crimes. Obviously in a competitive free market situation this imposes a major cost burden.

Even more worrying is the fact that it was reported to us, not only by small business representatives but in submissions by the IDA and by Dublin Corporation that in a particular inner city development in Dublin they sponsored, shop premises could not be let simply because there was no insurance available. We also heard from the IDA that the cost of insurance for small industrialists, where it was available, in some cases equalled the total level of the IDA grant-aid. These two examples are from people who do not have a vested interest, efficient State organisations, statutory bodies. The IDA and Dublin Corporation made submissions to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Small Businesses. That indicates the gravity of the situation.

We now see that the incidence whereby people can claim malicious damages from the local authority is to be simply refined down to the event of a riot — I will come to the definition of a riot later — and subversion, be it from North or South of the Border. This will mean many of these firms will be put under further pressure to increase their overheads to secure their premises. They will have increased overheads in terms of paying for more costly insurance, or they will have to run their own risks themselves because of the lack of availability of any insurance at all for their properties. That is an extremely serious situation which could result in some of those businesses having to close resulting in loss of jobs, loss of confidence and a decay and reversal of inner city development policy which goes against the whole thrust of the recent tax and incentive packages to put heart back in our inner cities.

In 1984 when we studied this area the Oireachtas joint committee came up with a specific proposal to try to alleviate this situation, bearing in mind the Government's intention at that time to repeal the existing malicious damages claims system. On the prevention side, there was a lot of dissatisfaction, especially amongst the Dublin City Centre Business Association, with the Garda rostering system. Cases often come up in court and the garda involved is not available for the court hearing because he was not rostered for duty on that day and this is very frustrating to business people. They also felt there was a lack of patrols.

There is a need to have a proper system of private security. At the moment I know small businesses who hired the services of private security firms only to find that some of these firms employed exconvicts and they ran into very serious problems. There is no licensing of private security firms; there is no regulatory body and no regulation whatsoever. If the Minister for Justice is saying the State, through local authorities, through the taxpayer, through the ratepayer, is no longer responsible for arson and malicious damages, then it is incumbent upon the Government to make available the necessary systems and structures so that the private security industry can flourish, become more reasonably costed and more available to small firms.

To get back to the specific malicious damages problems in this legislation, the committee felt that it was not adequate for the State to walk away from this situation and that a malicious damages fund should be set up which would bear in mind the not unreasonable point of view of the Government that, with claims running at the level of £20 million per annum, this is a major burden on the taxpayer and the community. I support the Minister in making some change in the situation. However, I believe we need some form of compromise whereby a malicious damages fund could be established from which damage claims exceeding an agreed maximum level could be paid. This fund would be operated by the insurance companies and, in turn, they would be obliged compulsorily to give malicious damages insurance cover. Claims from this fund would be confined to damage to premises, equipment and merchandise. Obviously, if there were fund deficits, they should be met out of the proceeds of court fines and the revenue that the courts generate and, if necessary, a small State subvention. We were unsuccessfully advocating in 1984 that negotiations should take place between the insurance companies and the Departments of Industry and Commerce and Justice explaining that there would no longer be malicious damages claims cover and there might be no insurance cover because the risks were too great. It is well known within the insurance industry that there are parts of the inner city areas which are no-go areas as far as insurance is concerned. We are not just talking about covering a risk from an insurance company's point of view. We are talking about the inevitability of paying out on claims that will occur because of the level of crime in those areas. We are asking that some measure be adopted in the event of this legislation being passed as it now stands to ensure that the insurance companies provide cover for firms that are trying to operate in those areas. The problems concerned cover the whole spectrum of small and large businesses. We are not talking just about shopkeepers but about industrialists, catering outlets, restaurants, cinemas and so forth — the whole area of enterprise.

The case is established that there are such no-go areas for insurance. Surely a compromise, middle of the road measure is necessary which would not incur expenditure of £20 million per annum from the Exchequer but would make sure that there would be cover. I strongly commend to the House and ask the Minister on Second Stage to have urgent discussions with the officials of his Department, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the insurance companies to see how the State can assist to ensure that cover will be made available. I hate to think of the ramifications and repercussions should there be no cover. It seems slightly illogical that the State should take no responsibility whatsoever in this area.

In detailed submissions earlier this year the insurance companies clearly told the Committee on Small Businesses that the removal of the malicious damages claim will increase the pricing of risks as, until now, the insurers have had a cushion behind them in high crime areas. The companies also felt that a further consequence would be a probable increase in unacceptable business in parts of Dublin. In other words, in regard to their property-related insurance portfolio, they would be saying that they simply would not get involved in those areas of risk because of the inevitability of claims. That is an extremely grave situation which this House cannot ignore if we are serious about helping enterprise and getting our inner city areas going. It is not just a case of money; it is also a case of facilitating firms in such a way as to ensure that they can take the necessary steps to have private security.

I also ask the Minister, through his collegue in the Department of the Environment, to give very serious consideration to some aspect of rates remission for firms which, because of this legislation, have to involve themselves in substantial expenditure on security precautions by way of alarms and other security systems. I see mention of 20p in the £. If that will be a saving because those awards will not be paid, surely it is not unreasonable, even for one or two years, to ask local authorities to circularise particular firms telling them that if they expend a large amount of money on improving security precautions in their premises they will get some small remission of rates for that, perhaps on the basis of so many pence in the pound. Something like that is necessary as an explanation of the difficulties involved and to show appreciation of these people having to cover their own insurance.

The Minister referred people with problems in obtaining insurance to the Department of Industry and Commerce to lodge their complaints, saying that these will be taken up with the Confederation of Insurers or the insurance companies specifically, depending on which firm is involved. I have much experience in this area with regard to employers and public liability insurance, which is not compulsory, and motor third party fire and theft insurance, which is compulsory. The insurance companies do not respond to the Department of Industry and Commerce. Having met the Assistant Secretary of that Department and the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Justice in the taking of oral evidence for the committee's report with regard to insurance difficulties of small firms, my view is that there is total complacency in the Departments of State regarding the current insurance problems.

I shall give a simple example of how far out of touch the Department of Industry and Commerce are. Each year they prepare returns which are presented to them by the insurance firms and the result called the blue book is published annually. The figures given in that blue book, showing the type of insurance problems that exist, indicate that between 1981 and 1982 insurance overall went up by 3.97 per cent and between 1982 and 1983 by 5.69 per cent. That is a total myth and untruth. The reality is that they are taking figures for total premia increases — in other words, the whole volume of business — but that does not take account of areas where insurance companies have failed to renew insurance, areas where cover was so expensive that businesses could not afford to renew the insurance cover, nor did it take account of transferance of insurance from one company to another. The blue book and the Department of Industry and Commerce say that there is no real problem in the insurance world, that premia went up by 3.97 and 5.69 per cent in 1981-82 and 1982-83, respectively. That takes no account of the number and volume of businesses covered. It just gives the total receipts.

My point is that the premiums may have gone up by only that amount, but there are far fewer businesses covered, so the insurance premia for the businesses which are covered have shot up by as much as 300 to 400 per cent. I have detailed evidence of this. For example, the FUE did a survey of their members from 1982 to 1984 and the survey showed that on average insurance for the firms surveyed went up by 280 per cent in a period where inflation was 24 per cent. There was evidence from smaller groups like the Irish Caravan Council showing that insurance had gone up by on average 400 per cent. The Royal Institute of Architects said that their insurance had gone up by over 100 per cent. These are very diverse bodies.

For the Minister for Justice to say that people can go to the Department of Industry and Commerce about their problems does not reflect the real situation. That Department have little or no understanding of the gravity of the current insurance problems under which the business community are suffering. I say that not subjectively but as a statement of fact, having looked at the blue book and the way the figures are presented and knowing that those figures do not reflect accurately the current average increases in premia. The Department of Industry and Commerce have no control over insurance companies. In reality there is no price control and there is no regulation. Any element of interaction between insurance companies and the Department is a consultatory one in so far as the Department are told only of what is going on and de facto there is no control. I do not wish to expand any further on that topic. This is only one aspect of property-related insurance, but there is an extremely serious problem there of crisis proportions, which is forcing people out of business and the Department of Justice have a very critical role in the State response because 15 to 20 per cent on average of all claims are legal costs. Less than 1 per cent of cases are settled in court. That is because of the senior counsel rule and because legal charges are included in these insurance claims. The Department of Justice are not doing enough. Insurance companies will now say that they will not cover the risk because it is an inevitable claim. Secondly, they will rise premiums by £20 million to cover the risk involved because they will now have to pick up the tab. This will result in the business community covering their own risks.

I welcome the fact that county councils will still have an administrative role in the handling of malicious damages, even though it will be on a limited basis. It is unfair that local authorities have to be responsible for areas such as the maintenance of courts out of their own budget. I am glad that there will be full recoupment from the Exchequer to local authorities for claims and that there will be no further difficulties in that area.

Section 2 of the Bill deals with the definition of riot and section 3 deals with the definition of subversive activity. Most things do not come under either of those categories and therefore the State would not be liable in any way. Measures should be taken on Committee Stage to allow some degree of flexibility and to allow some opportunity, particularly in no-go areas of insurance, whereby people in areas where there are repeated incidents of arson and malicious damage could claim. That will not open the floodgates which would result in over £20 million being spent every year. It would give some recognition to the problems that currently exist.

I note the Minister's valid point that the position in relation to private security firms in Northern Ireland and the UK is different to that here. The opportunities open to people to prevent claims do not exist here. We are moving from an unsatisfactory situation as regards malicious claims whereby people experienced cash flow difficulties because of the cumbersome system of making claims. They were contested by the local authority engineer and had to go through the courts. We are moving to a Pontius Pilate type situation where the State has no interest or responsibility in arson or malicious damages. This will have very serious repercussions for insurance companies and for the business community. Everything I have said about the business community equally holds good for householders on small incomes whose premiums will continue to drastically escalate.

I ask the Minister to consider urgently setting up discussions with the Department of Industry and Commerce, his officials and the insurance companies to establish some malicious damages fund, the proceeds of which would go towards paying claims over a given level of, say, £20,000. This would mean that the person who made that claim would never get insurance again. The insurance companies would, in a quid pro quo way, guarantee to give cover to those areas which are suffering. That fund would be met by the premia which would be collected, from a small state subvention, from the proceeds of court fines and so on. That proposal which was made in 1984 by the Joint Committee on Small Businesses was well researched. Having carried out a major study on the whole insurance sector and having spoken to the insurance companies, I believe it is workable. I ask the Minister to respond positively to the proposal.

Mr. B. Ahern

I, like all my colleagues — and I know that quite a number of them wish to speak on this Bill over the next few weeks — am totally opposed to the Bill. I wish to say why we are so bitterly opposed to the principle of this Bill, why we think it is an error and why we ask the Government to withdraw this legislation and to rethink it over the summer. It arose from a promise made by the Government when putting together their programme for 1984-87. I can understand that the Government were under pressure at that stage to try to find areas where public expenditure could be cut. Somebody obviously examined malicious injuries and the huge escalation of costs under the malicious injuries scheme. They then decided to change it. It should not be thought about in that way, but I understand why it was. The Department had to follow through on the Government's promise. But, if they withdraw the Bill, they will realise the support they will get for doing so.

The Minister today avoided all the issues. I have watched him closely for a number of years. His tactic was always to give a very vague Second Stage speech when he was Minister for Finance and also since he became Minister for Justice. When he hears the arguments he then comes back to try to defeat them. The argument is put forward, as mentioned by Deputy Kelly, that the people have to pay these costs. The State cannot afford white elephants. We cannot afford to pay for things which are not viable and which are burdens around the taxpayers' necks. All of those arguments are credible to some extent. But, what the Minister and Deputy Kelly failed to say was that the reason we have such a high level of malicious injury is that the whole security system and administration of justice have failed to control the problem of crime. It is not through fraud or neglect on anybody's part. The Garda have to be commended for some of their developments. As Deputy Woods quoted, malicious injury claims cost £13 million in the Dublin area. This is because of the inability to stop crime. If the malicious injury fund is removed the city will be destroyed. There are large areas of the city, such as Capel Street, North King Street, Parnell Street, Talbot Street, Mary Street, Cathedral Street, almost the entire area of the quays, Phibsborough, Cabra and Drumcondra, where people cannot get insurance.

I have argued several times before in debates on crime that people living in private or local authority flats in this city cannot get insurance. There are certain stretches and complexes, which I will not put on the record of the House, where an insurance company will not even reply to an application. That is a fact. Our party spokesman, Deputy Flynn, will contribute to this debate next week when he will outline all the data and information we have collected from our meetings with the city centre traders, small business people and the Garda Síochána. I am not blaming the Government for all our crime problems. If those problems were gone, there would be some argument for abolishing malicious injuries. You have to have a very substantial case, fight it and prove all the facts to the local authority on a malicious injuries claim. If £13 million has been paid out, the need is obvious and the argument has been made.

If these claims are abolished, city centre traders will go elsewhere. They will say it is a hopeless case and cause. The insurance companies will not insure their premises. The Minister is from County Kildare, not from Timbuctoo He knows the crime problems in Dublin. The Minister said that where a person cannot get insurance:

if a problem does arise in an individual case in obtaining cover for malicious damage, then, as is the case where difficulties in obtaining cover in relation to other risks are referred to it, the Department of Industry and Commerce will be prepared to examine the matter to see what can be done.

I have received buckets of letters. When I got sense about four years ago I gave up writing to the Department trying to get insurance for people. The Department of Industry and Commerce will do nothing.

If you are from North King Street and you are complying with the insurance regulations, if you have an iron roof and cement basement, alarm links to the Bridewell and dogs, you still cannot get insurance. The Department of Industry and Commerce are very unsympathetic. If you live on Killiney Hill, Dalkey Heights or Howth Head, I do not know what answer they would give you. I can talk about what I know and what I can prove — the inner city of Dublin, northside or southside. The Department of Industry and Commerce will not help and no insurance company will either. What the Minister says is true. No insurer can be compelled to underwrite a particular risk. That is the very reason why we need malicious injuries claims until the crime problem is solved.

There is a total contradiction in Government policy. Last week we had the Urban Renewal Bill and a few weeks before the Finance Bill where there were major incentives built in to try to encourage developers and investors who have ideas to put their money into the city. I have totally supported the Government on the Finance Bill and the Urban Renewal Bill on those lines. The Malicious Injuries (Amendment) Bill is doing precisely the opposite. People cannot trade and will not be able to survive. People living in the inner city will not report robberies to the Garda Síochána because they can do nothing. That is why some of the crime figures are down. It always saddens me in this House when arguments are put forward which are out of touch with reality. The people putting forward the arguments, who have people to advise them, know the real position. The Department of Justice who are sponsoring this Bill know exactly what the problems are. Because of Government cutbacks, they find themselves bringing forward a Bill which is totally against what they know to be the case.

I have received many letters I spoke to Deputy Woods about them. He used much of the information we have collected. I want to quote a letter which I have received signed by Brother McAllister of the St. Lawrence O'Toole's Christian Brothers' School, of which I am a past pupil. The school is being attacked and wrecked on a regular basis. This is an open letter written to the Minister for Education and it says:

We, the staff of St. Lawrence O'Toole's C.B.S. Senior Boys Primary School, would like to draw your attention to the following facts:

We are teachers in the Inner City area with most of our children drawn originally from the severly deprived Sheriff Street flats.

Unemployment among our parents runs at about 70%...

That is the manpower survey figure—

...and our work is made more difficult by the prevalence of crime, drug abuse, alcoholism, family breakdown and the effects of these problems on our children.

We have seen an increase in indiscipline and lack of respect for teachers among parents and pupils and we would request clear information from your Department on a policy on discipline (including effective sanctions) which we can apply in our school.

Five years ago our school was in a state of crisis. Discipline was non-existent and staff were leaving every few months. This situation was remedied by the appointment of a walking Principal and the sanctioning by your Department of one teacher per class standard.

Last Summer, after the end of the school year and without consultation, your Department cut a teacher from our staff. As a result, we have had to combine fourth and fifth standards in the same class. In the light of increased problems with discipline and the added pressure put on all members of our staff, we request that this post should be restored immediately. Otherwise we can foresee a return to the situation which existed...

They give facts about the school. Unemployment is at 70 per cent. Church going attendance is 16 per cent. The parish is in debt to the tune of £60,000 and the banks are closing in. They said:

If the Department of Education is unwilling to make a special financial case for this inner-city school, we have no alternative but to hand over the keys of the school to the Department of Education by the end of the Summer vacation.

That school has survived on the malicious injuries fund. It is only one. I could name several others. The Minister totally ignored all those issues: the attacks on the churches, the attacks on the public buildings, the burning of community halls, all of which are crime related. The Government's response is to abolish the malicious injuries fund. The Minister in a disgraceful and pathetic script said: "Take up the case with the Department of Industry and Commerce". If I were the Minister and somebody handed me that script, knowing the position I will not say what I would have done with it as it would be unparliamentary. It is so out of touch. The person who wrote that was either told by the Minister to play it down and ignore the issues, or knows nothing about who claims from the malicious injuries fund.

I gather from my own party meeting yesterday and last week that this debate will continue for a long time. People will continue to make this case to try to argue for the business people, the householders, the churches, the schools, community buildings and State buildings which are being attacked, broken into and burned. People are coming in through the roof and up through the floorboards. The one protection which they have is the malicious injuries fund. The Government are going to abolish that. I cannot see the logic. A while ago we had the argument about Garda overtime. It was said that the £20 million will be cut in two years time when the crime rate will have fallen. In the Dublin No. 1 and No. 2 areas, where £13 million has been paid out of the malicious injuries fund, it is self evident why a fund is needed. When I read about this Bill some weeks ago and heard the Minister was going ahead with it, I presumed he had some alternative schemes for the areas where there are high malicious damages. It could be said that there is a riot in this city every night.

Debate adjourned.

Dr. O'Hanlon

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I should like to raise on the Adjournment the closure of the national cardiac surgery center at the Mater Hospital and other cutbacks at that hospital.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will communicate with the Deputy.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 12 Jun 1986

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

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Jun 1986