Michael Creed
Ceist:9 Mr. Creed asked the Minister for Justice the value of property stolen during 1991, the value of such property recovered during 1991; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Stolen Property Value.
Michael Finucane
Ceist:19 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for Justice the value of property stolen during 1991, the value of such property recovered during 1991, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Tom Enright
Ceist:77 Mr. Enright asked the Minister for Justice the value of property stolen during 1991, the value of such property recovered during 1991, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 19 and 77 together.
I am informed by the Garda authorities that information in relation to the value of property stolen and recovered is published in the Garda Commissioner's Annual Report on Crime, copies of which are available in the Oireachtas Library. The 1991 report will be published shortly.
That reply is entirely inadequate. If the 1991 Garda Commissioner's Annual Report on Crime is to be published shortly surely the Minister has the relevant figures at his finger tips now. He should have given the House the information requested. Will he give the House an estimate? For example, would the figure be £35 million or £40 million? I expect the figure would be of that order. Has the Minister some indication in his files of the exact figure and, if so, will he inform the House?
The Deputy has asked a straight question. Of course I have the provisional figures which would be regarded as confidential until the report has been published. Therefore, the Deputy must not press me on that. I will go no further than saying that the figures are in excess of the 1990 figures; in other words, the total value of property stolen in 1991 was greater than that in 1990. I might add that the total value of property recovered in 1991 was also greater than that recovered in 1990.
Would the Minister give the House a figure with which we can deal?
I will give the Deputy the 1990 figure.
I do not see any reason for the Minister keeping the 1991 figures secret since they are provisional figures and there is never anything secret about provisional figures. Can he not inform us of the provisional figures for 1991 since he has them? What is wrong with giving us them?
They are confidential to me. I am telling the Deputy that the figure was in excess of £36 million in 1990 and it will be more than that in 1991.
Without breaching confidentiality perhaps the Minister can tell us what was the increase in 1991? Furthermore, he might agree that information should not be kept confidential from Members merely because the Minister is waiting for a document to come off the printing presses? Perhaps the Minister would indicate to us what is the relevant increase?
That is not a fair way to put it. I could just as easily have said the figures were not available to me today.
Yes, but that would have been untrue.
I told the Deputy that I do have the figures but they are provisional and confidential to me at this stage. If they had to change I would be seen as having told a lie in the House. I do not want that to happen. I am telling the Deputy that it is more than £36 million. I do not think we should be wasting time getting into these details.
Would the Minister agree that the 1990 figures for the value of property stolen are alarming? Since this property must be moved and resold — as happens in the case of a substantial amount of it — can the Minister tell the House whether he is aware, or whether the Garda Síochána know, of the huge racket involved in the resale of stolen property?
The Deputy will agree with me that always there has been that difficulty, particularly when one realises that approximately 57 per cent of all crime is in respect of larcenies. I might add that 40 per cent of all crime was against property in 1990 and that gives some idea of the amount of goods that go missing. The Larceny Act, 1990, did make quite an advance in tightening up the law in two ways. First, the organised receiving of stolen property which, of course, generates and encourages further crime, has been dealt with fairly effectively, so that the perpetrators of this corrupting form of activity can be pursued to conviction now with greater efficacy than was the case in the past. The other major change effected by that Act is that it updates the laws against the practice commonly known as "going equipped", that is having articles in one's possession which would have been acquired through larceny. There has been a big improvement in the law in that area which, hopefully, will have the desired impact. It is a rather insidious type of crime, very large sums of money are involved, and we must endeavour to deal with it. This problem can only be dealt with by strengthening the law and the powers of the Garda. This was done under the Larceny Act, 1990.
I call Deputy Cotter. I wish to bring this question to finality. I am concerned about the slow progress on questions today.
From reading between the lines of the Minister's reply, I take it we are looking at a figure in excess of £40 million, given that the figure in 1989 was £33 million. I also take it that the Garda have been as ineffective in 1991 in recovering stolen goods as they were during previous years. Would the Minister not agree that crime barons in this city and elsewhere are living ostentatious lifestyles from the proceeds of crime? Until such time as the Minister decides to tackle that problem and prove to people that crime does not pay, these figures will continue to grow annually. The Garda are not only unable to prevent crime——
Please, Deputy Cotter.
——but will continue to have enormous difficulty——
Let us have regard to brevity.
——in trying to retrieve stolen goods. I understand that only between 7 to 8 per cent of stolen goods are retrieved.
It is an interesting statistic. The crime figures for Britain show that one-third of all burglars get into houses through an open door or an open window. This indicates that measures can be taken by the general public which would prevent burglaries.
The Minister has personal experience of that.
A little.
So have I.
All of us have.
I will not go into this issue, but my video was taken and I understand I will not get it back.
The Minister does not deserve to get it back.
The Minister did nothing which would have brought that about.
That is another example of the socialist ideology of the party on my right; according to the Democratic Left none of us is entitled to private property.
Does the Deputy think I should consult him in the matter?
I sympathise with the Minister and I hope he gets back his video.
I appreciate that, but I have to say that the Garda did their job and captured the burglars. That is the important point.
We do not need the views of the hard left on these issues.
Does the Deputy think I should consult him in the matter?
If I was the Minister I would not bother — he would have an unsympathetic audience.
Can we come to deal with another question?
Deputy Farrelly raised the important issue as to how we should deal with the proceeds of crime. Legislation in this regard is top of my priority list. I should like to see that legislation put on the Statute Book this year. Those who accumulate and amass fortunes from the proceeds of crime have to be dealt with in a specific way. This is my top priority and legislation in this regard will be introduced in 1992.
I do not wish in any way to minimise the significance of this crime, but I ask the Minister to comment on the view that the figures can often be misleading. The figures for stolen property are based on the insurance value, as given by people, but when the property is recovered its value seems to drop dramatically. Therefore, there can be a massive disparity between the figures for stolen property and the figures for property which is recovered. The Garda Commissioner has no control over this issue; he has to work on the figures supplied.
That may be the case but we should not downgrade this matter. A lot of money is involved — £36 million, plus the increase. The recovery rate of stolen property is not great. There is a lot of traffic in this market with people buying and selling stolen goods. The figure for 1990 of £36 million gives an indication of the amount of bad business taking place in this market. I would like to think that the law dealing with the proceeds from crime will put a dent in the pockets of these crime barons.
May I——
I am anxious to get on to Deputy Farrelly's question.
Would the Minister agree that we have a huge black economy which is being fed by criminality? Is the Minister in a position to indicate the number of cases brought before the courts and convictions secured in the past few years in the case of persons receiving the proceeds of crime? I appreciate that the Minister may not have the figures.
Questions, Deputy.
Would the Minister agree that it is only when the receivers and the sellers of stolen property are put behind locked bars that this problem can be resolved once and for all and an end put to this growing black economy? This is the largest growing area in our economy at present.
I do not have the exact figures. I wish to read into the record the significant changes which have taken place under the Larceny Act, 1990. This Act provides that as well as actual possession or control of stolen property the new offence will encompass such activities as undertaking or assisting in the retention of stolen property or its removal, disposal or realisation by another or arranging to do any of those things. Instead of actual knowledge that the property was stolen, which is the way it was formerly, it will now be sufficient to show knowledge or belief that the property was stolen in order to obtain a conviction. Of course, the handling of stolen property will in all cases be an arrestable offence. That is a considerable advance on the position which obtained heretofore.
Does the Minister have any statistics?
Can we come to Question No. 10, please?