Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Apr 1943

Vol. 27 No. 20

Accidental Fires Bill, 1943—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am taking this Bill for the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is engaged in the other House. It is to deal with a situation which arose out of a fire which occurred in Athlone, when the mill premises were burned down and other houses in the town took fire. It was held by the courts that these mill premises were not "a house" within the meaning of an old Act, and that, therefore, they were liable for the fires which occurred in other premises. I have a full brief here, and perhaps the best thing I could do would be to read it, but that is the situation. It was found then that people could not be covered against such a risk as that. It was thought, up to the time of this decision, that the law was the same here as I believe it is in England—that one of those premises would be considered "a house" also. Perhaps, in order to explain the position more fully, I ought to read the brief?

I think we understand the position fairly well.

Then I need not bother reading the whole thing.

I think this is a case where the Government has stepped in to do a very necessary piece of work. As a result of a decision based on an Act of the old Irish Parliament, it was discovered that, under certain circumstances, traders, manufacturers and owners of property which might not be held to be a house would find themselves liable for everything that might even indirectly result from a fire. That, in fact, would mean that, if you live in Dublin, in order to be quite safe you would have to insure yourself against the destruction of the whole of Dublin as a result of a fire in your premises. Of course, that creates a position which no industry or trade could possibly insure against, because the profits for a year would not pay the premium for a year. That being so, I think the Government did the right thing in saying that they would bring in a Bill, and, if necessary, make it retrospective. As to whether this Bill actually meets the case is a legal question. It has been examined outside, and I am pretty certain that I would have heard some complaints if it was thought that it would not meet the case. I am strongly in favour of the Bill. Of course, it is retrospective to the 16th November last.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining stages now.
The Bill passed through Committee, without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Ordered: That the Bill be returned to the Dáil.
Top
Share