Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 May 1940

Vol. 24 No. 17

Matter Raised on Motion for the Adjournment. - War Risk Insurance in Éire.

In moving the adjournment of the House, I should like to draw the attention of the Government, through the Minister who is present, to the need for an early consideration of the possibility of providing some type of war-risk insurance in this country. We are aware that An Taoiseach and others have warned us that we are within what he calls the war zone and that we cannot ignore the possibility of certain danger. I do not want anything that I should say to exaggerate in any way that danger or to add to any uneasiness, but the dangers of the moment are further emphasised by the action taken in the Dáil last night which I think everybody in this House will thoroughly approve and which we all hope will meet with the greatest possible success. That action shows the need for our standing together in every possible way at the present time. Now, it seems to me that if people are going to stand together, and if it should be necessary to take action and to take risks, they will do so with very much more confidence if some provision has been made by which property losses will be shared all round. That, to my mind, can only be done satisfactorily through some system of war-risk insurance. It also seems to me that at the present time it is extremely important that every person should carry on normally as far as possible, and that there should be no restriction of trade, business, or anything else, just because we have been warned that there may conceivably be a certain amount of danger. Already, it has come to my notice that certain persons, who have fairly considerable stocks and who have to carry considerable stocks as part of their business, are restricting buying because they feel that the personal risk of carrying stocks is too great. I suggest that, if you are going to maintain employment, and if you are going to maintain business during the period in which we may be subject to a possible risk, the maintenance of that employment and that business will be greatly facilitated by providing some method whereby persons, firms, or businesses can insure their stocks.

I do not know what the exact position is in England, but I think it is the same as in the Six Counties, and in the Six Counties a business with which I have intimate knowledge is able to insure its stocks, which are very considerable—in fact, it is compulsory to insure—and the rate since the beginning of the war, or at any rate since one month afterwards, has been 5/- per cent. per month. As far as I know, a scheme has been worked out in Great Britain also. I do not think that that covers private houses, and I do not know what the position is with regard to farms, but I am very strongly of the opinion that the Government should give this matter very careful consideration. To my mind, it is very important in the case of industries, factories, warehouses, shops and all types of businesses that employ a fair number of people and where substantial stocks have to be carried. Should the worst happen here—which we all hope and pray will not be the case— and a certain amount of damage be done, it would be done, judging by, say, the case of Finland, in a relatively small portion of the total area of the country, but it might be absolutely vital in maintaining the national spirit of the people that they should feel that the losses would be unquestionably shared by everybody, including those who were more fortunate.

In addition to that, I know that there is a certain amount of uneasiness, due to the fact that a very large number of our shop-keepers, factory-owners and businessmen generally— and, I think, farmers also — have to borrow from banks from time to time against the security of their business, in which case, very often, their greatest asset is the amount of stocks they deal with, and if such firms or companies found that substantial destruction took place, they would be placed in the position that they could not carry on at all and, possibly, could not go to their banks for any further accommodation; whereas, in normal circumstances, if the same property had been destroyed by, let us say, fire, and had been insured in the ordinary course, as soon as the banks were satisfied that the matter of insurance was in order, the banks would be quite willing to facilitate the owner of the property concerned by giving him a loan to enable him to start his business again as soon as possible. As a rule, if things are found to be in order, the banks are very ready to facilitate persons in that way.

For these and many other reasons that I could give, I believe that, as part and parcel of the steps that should be taken in connection with what we may call the crisis, which we are told is now before us—although I think that that crisis has been in existence for a much longer time than some of us seem to realise—I think that there should be some provision made for war-risk insurance. I am not putting this matter forward in any critical or Party sense, but I am putting it forward as a matter to which I think the Government should give careful attention. I have been informed by the manager of one leading insurance company that such a matter could not be considered by ordinary insurance companies, and that any such scheme would have to be arranged in conjunction with the State, as, I believe, is the case in Great Britain. I am bringing forward this matter to-day because I know that it is agitating the minds of a large number of people, many of whom have spoken to me, and because I believe that it is a matter that should be taken into consideration as soon as possible.

I should like to support Senator Douglas on the general principle that this is a matter that ought to be considered. I do not see much difficulty in being able to go as far as they have gone on the other side in connection with the insurance of stocks, but when you come to the question of insurance on private houses, it is a different matter. I understand, that, on the other side, they say that they cannot deal with such a matter: that it is a question of waiting until the war is over in order to be able to assess what damage has been done. Apart from that, however, I think that the Government should examine this matter and go into it at the earliest possible opportunity.

I understand that what is being put forward in this motion is merely a proposal that the Government should consider this matter. Personally, I should not like the Minister to make any statement now, either committing the Government to this proposal or rejecting it. I agree that it is a matter for consideration. Now, I am not quite sure what will be the functions of this new council or committee that has been formed, as was announced last night, but I think that, as this is a matter arising out of war conditions, it might be something that they would have to consider. From that point of view, I hope that the Minister will not either bless or damage the proposal that is made here, and that he will not go further than an undertaking to consider it.

May I be permitted to point out that that was my only intention in making this proposal? I only wanted the Minister, or his Government, to consider the matter, but wanted to point out that the matter was urgent.

Naturally, since the matter has been raised in the House, I promise to give consideration to this matter—not for the first time because, as a matter of fact, we did look into the question on the outbreak of the war, but we then came to the conclusion that the matter, as Senator Sir John Keane has mentioned, was one of very great difficulty. I do not know to what extent it would be possible for us to grant insurance in respect of all classes of property. Naturally, people who have no property might say: "You had better insure us with regard to our lives first, before you begin to think of property." When you begin to consider how far that idea might be applied—the idea of sharing our losses—and what limitations might be put upon that, I think you will find that it is not at all a simple matter. I suppose one may start from the assumption that if people have stocks in the country, or if they import stocks into the country, they import them primarily for their own advantage and hope to make an honest profit on the sale of these stocks. If they do not happen to have the stocks on hands, and if an opportunity should arise to dispose of such stocks, at a time when they have not got them, then they would lose a profit. Naturally, the incentive to make a profit is the cause of importing or carrying these stocks. However, there is another point of view, and that is that the importation of these stocks may be for the good of the community as a whole, ultimately, and it is rather from that point of view that I should like to approach the matter: that is, in order to ensure that no undue impediment or discouragement might prevent the due replenishment of our stocks, and that any such undue impediment should be removed. I should rather approach the matter from that point of view than from the point of view of distributing losses in respect of property over the whole community. As I said, this matter has been raised before, but since it has become, perhaps, more urgent than the case appeared to be eight months ago, I shall look into it again.

Perhaps I might be permitted to say, that, in this connection, I was advocating entirely a contributory scheme, and nothing else.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.40 p.m. until Wednesday, 5th June.

Top
Share