I move:—
That, in the opinion of the Seanad, the Government should formulate a scheme of war risk insurance for property, and take the necessary steps to put the scheme into operation.
I put down this motion in the knowledge that the question it raises is a very difficult and a very complex one, and that neither this Minister, nor any other Minister, nor any Government of any kind, can, by waving a magic wand, arrive at a satisfactory solution of it, because it does partake to some degree of the nature of a prophecy of what is going to happen in the future. At the same time, the matter is one upon which we have already, after years of experience of war and a shorter experience of what is known as total warfare, a certain amount of information. The motion asks the Government to prepare a scheme of war risk insurance for property. The question was raised here about four months ago and the Minister for Industry and Commerce said that the matter had been considered and he would promise that it would receive further consideration. I think we would be all agreed that it is now more urgent, and is made more urgent, not only by general happenings in the world and in a neighbouring island, but by a disaster which occurred within our own territory and in a rural area. The problem, for many reasons, is not an urban one. It is not a problem that concerns the cities only— the destruction of property in war—it also concerns rural areas. Neither is it a problem which concerns the comparatively small number of property owners only. It might be said—the Minister nearly went so far as to say it himself when replying here before—that these people are capable of looking after themselves, but the position of property-owners, and the consequences of the destruction of property, whether of stocks or buildings, are of concern to other persons besides the owners, and it is in its national aspect and from the point of view of its effect upon employment, upon supplies, and upon the normal life of the people, that I should like to ask the House to consider it, and the Government to take action upon it.
The question also is not, of course, one which is in any sense one of Party politics. Ministers have frequently told us recently that we are well within the war zone, and an Army officer, broadcasting the night before last from Dublin, said that it was the wish of the Government that every householder should supply himself with an air raid shelter. We can see, therefore, that the problem is one of general application and, it would appear,. of immediate urgency. Sometimes, in this kind of case, one asks for a committee to consider the matter, but it seems to me that the matter has already been considered by the Government and that the Minister would welcome an opportunity of stating what conclusions have been arrived at. On the 27th May the Minister for Industry and Commerce here contrasted the position of a person whose life was in danger, and said that that kind of man might very reasonably say that insurance for him might be considered before any question of insurance of property was taken up. The truth, of course, is— and I should like to deal with it at the outset—that there is no contrast or opposition at all between the two things, insurance for life and insurance for property. Life can be insured even against war risks, and I think that most life insurance policies which were in force before the war covered, and still cover, risk of death by enemy action. In any event, circumstances with regard to loss of civilian life in modern warfare have radically altered. In every conflict Governments have assumed responsibility or a measure of responsibility for the dependants of soldiers who are killed or wounded, but unfortunately for us all, Sir, the distinction between civilians and soldiers in warfare, and their danger in warfare, has now almost entirely disappeared, and, in certain phases and in certain places, has disappeared to the detriment of the ordinary civilian. Civilians and their property are now in the front line of warfare, and what formerly applied in the way of compensation for the dependants of soldiers must, I think, in the nature of things and within the measure of the resources of the State, apply now to the dependants of the ordinary civilian. We speak in Irish of the bearna baoghail, or the gap of danger, but there is now no gap of danger into which the soldier can leap to the defence of his fellow-citizens, and the A.R.P. warden, the first-aid worker, or the fireman may find himself, in certain circumstances, in more danger than a member of the actual armed forces of the State. It seems to me, therefore, that in so far as lives are concerned a national effort must be made, and I have no doubt will be made, to come to the rescue of dependents of persons who lose their lives in war, and to allow these dependants to continue their normal life in the State.
The question of property, as I said before, is on a different footing, and I should like to deal with its importance, apart altogether from its amenities or profits to the immediate owner. The existence of stocks, machinery and buildings is necessary to provide work and to provide the very means of livelihood for ordinary people. From that point of view, certain kinds of property are much more important than others. Property is necessary for the raising of revenue either for the State or for local bodies, and it affects them both directly and indirectly. Its importance, therefore, as far as normal life is concerned, can hardly be over-estimated. The owner of property has certain obligations, but in the circumstances of war it is actually impossible for an owner to assume all the obligations of insurance. Just as his resources are limited, so the resources of the State are limited, but a combination of both, while not providing total cover, would, I think, provide partial cover and provide a certain stability and force, which would help employment when one would wonder what it is that can be done to ensure reconstruction after damage.
There has been, as I said, a certain experience of what has happened in the war, leading to certain conclusions. I think it was in 1937 that a committee in England considered the question of war risk insurance and came to the conclusion that the amount of damage that would be done in what is called total warfare would be enormous and incalculable, and that, therefore, no scheme of insurance or compensation could be formulated. In spite of that, in 1939, certain provisions were made in England under the War Insurance Act with regard to damage to stocks, and, strangely enough, since the intensification of aerial warfare in England, it has been stated that the total damage in relation to the whole sum of property in the country is by no means as great as was thought. The most recent figure that I remember is that in the month of August 800 houses were destroyed out of a total of 13,000,000. There was also a recent statement by Mr. Keynes, the economist, that if £1,000,000 worth were destroyed every night for a whole year, the total sum would not be an appreciable percentage of property in Great Britain.