Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are Government amendments and it might be more convenient if they were discussed together.
Neutrality (War Damage to Property) Bill, 1941—Report and Final Stages.
Is it the wish of the House that these three amendments should be discussed together?
Agreed.
Government amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4:—
1. In page 4, Section 3, in sub-section (1), to add at the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—
(e) every person who, by reason of an injury to which this Act applies to a building, has suffered or shall suffer loss (other than loss by an injury to his property) in respect of which compensation may be awarded under this Act.
3. In page 8, Section 10, in sub-section (1), lines 42 and 43, to delete the words "provisions of the next following sub-section" and substitute the words "subsequent provisions".
4. In page 8, Section 10, before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Where a building has sustained an injury to which this Act applies, the following provisions shall apply and have effect, that is to say:—
(a) compensation under this Act may be awarded to a person who carried on a trade, profession, or business in the said building in respect of his loss of earnings from the said trade, profession, or business where by reason of the said injury it is, during any period, impossible or impracticable to carry on the said trade, profession, or business, but such compensation shall not exceed 15 per cent. of the annual rate of the earnings of such person from the said trade, profession, or business as carried on in the said building during the twelve consecutive months or the period during which the said trade, profession, or business was so carried on (whichever is the lesser) next preceding the date on which the said injury occurred or the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds, whichever is the lesser;
(b) compensation under this Act in respect of loss of employment may be awarded to an individual who was, immediately before the said injury, employed in a trade, profession, or business carried on in the said building and has, by reason of the said injury, lost his said employment either permanently or temporarily, but such compensation shall not exceed 15 per cent. of the annual rate of his earnings in that employment during the twelve consecutive months or the period during which he was in the said employment (whichever is the lesser) next preceding the date of the said injury or the sum of one hundred and fifty pounds, whichever is the lesser.
Perhaps the Minister would explain the three amendments together. Amendment No. 4 is the one that we are really interested in. The others are consequential.
I have given a lot of consideration to the idea set out in amendment No. 2, in the name of Senator Hayes, which was mentioned when we were discussing this Bill last week, especially in view of the appeals made to me, from all sides of the House, on the question of consequential loss. I have also taken counsel, as I told the Seanad I would, with my colleagues in the Government. I am afraid that I cannot accept Senator Hayes's amendment, even in the altered form in which it is tabled on to-day's Order Paper. His amendment would permit compensation to be paid for consequential loss, without limit as to category or amount. In other words, the door would be left not ajar but wide open to every sort of consequential loss without restriction as to kind or amount. This would be an entirely new departure in our compensation legislation. It was only with the greatest hesitation I agreed to meet the special category of consequential loss provided for in Section 10 (2) of the Bill and I did not contemplate going any further. To go the length Senator Hayes asks me to go would be to open up an almost limitless field. Every person who suffers a direct injury almost certainly suffers some kind of consequential loss, big or small, of one kind or another; many who do not suffer any direct injury at all will suffer a consequential loss and, in some cases, that consequential loss will be more serious than that sustained by persons directly injured.
If the State had unlimited resources, it would, no doubt, be able to make good not only immediate and direct loss—which Senators, generally, I think, agree the Bill adequately provides for—but even indirect loss to the fullest possible extent. Our resources, however, are limited and, as I have indicated on other occasions, the stream of revenue shows signs of drying up and we have reached the limit of new taxation in many respects. It has also to be remembered that many taxpayers who must bear the burden of compensation have themselves suffered, or may suffer, consequential loss even though no damage has been, or may be, done to their own premises or property. Moreover, the consequences of a bombing incident may be so far-reaching as to give rise to an almost endless series of consequential loss and it would, obviously, be impossible to provide adequate compensation for everything, even assuming the casual connection between any given loss and the bombing could be established. If the matter were left at large to the court, we might have, as between different judges, anomalies as to what constitutes consequential loss, in the first place, and the measure of compensation to be awarded, in the second place.
Senator Hayes it is true, proposed last week that compensation should be paid only in respect of consequential loss that is reasonable, having regard to the circumstances of each particular case, and was prepared to leave to me the last word as to what was reasonable. This would still leave the matter at large and it is obvious that, since I could not undertake to allow full compensation in every case of consequential loss, it would be necessary for me, administratively, to try to impose some limit as to amount or category, whether by mere Ministerial direction or by formal regulation, and Senator Hayes recognises this in the amendment he has tabled for to-day. But such restrictions would, I fear, be futile, in practice, because I should be stepping into the unknown and as new classes of loss, just as deserving, perhaps, as those already included, occurred or came to light, I would be under constant pressure to bring in these new categories or pay on a more generous scale. In the long run I would have to be prepared to pay compensation in every kind of case. The field has either to be left at large, so as not to leave out the really urgent case that cannot now be envisaged, or it has got to be kept within such carefully defined limits as are likely to cover the more obvious cases of hardship.
The Senator's amendment of last week made reference to insurance standards. I have taken advice on this aspect of the matter and I have a pretty good idea now of what the practice of insurance companies is. Insurance companies issue consequential-loss policies only in a well-defined category of cases; they do not, at any rate, issue policies for some losses for which, I have no doubt, the State would be expected to pay compensation under the suggested amendment. Moreover, insurance standards, where available, would not be a fair guide for the State; the companies have been able to measure the risks, and premiums are charged and paid in proportion to those risks. Here, the risks are incalculable and we have accumulated no funds that would be adequate to cover the risks the State is asked to undertake.
As already indicated, I have given the matter anxious thought since I met the Seanad last week. I was impressed by the arguments made by Senators in favour of something being done for persons whose livelihood was adversely affected. Cases were cited of the losses of tradespeople, of employees losing their salaries or wages, of the loss of the self-employer, like the shoemaker mentioned last week, and also losses sustained by persons taking in lodgers or letting houses or rooms. I agree that hardship may be caused in cases like these and I have endeavoured to meet such cases in the amendments I circulated yesterday. These amendments, if incorporated in the Bill, will enable compensation up to, roughly, two months' wages to be paid to a worker who loses his employment as a result of his employer's business premises being destroyed or damaged. They will also enable something like two months' income to be paid to the trader himself, and so on. This gives the parties concerned time to look around for new work or premises, etc., as the case may be. The compensation will be subject to a money limit as well as a percentage limit; this is necessary as, otherwise, I might be undertaking liability in respect of big business concerns whose earnings were of the order, perhaps, of thousands of pounds.
In these amendments, I have done my best to meet the cases that have been represented to me as most typical and frequent. My proposal covers all the poorer classes and cases in which real hardship might arise; the better-off classes and big business must be expected to look after themselves to the extent to which they are not covered by the maximum contribution provided in the amendment.
I have also considered the question whether I should retain complete discretion in my own hands in these cases or whether the court should come into the picture, as in the case of other claims under the Bill. From the administrative angle and in view of the amount of money that may be involved, I have come to the conclusion that it would be better to leave the compensation for consequential loss, as for all other matters, to be determined, in the last resort, by the court.
Having regard to the concessions I am now making, in bringing in these new categories of consequential loss, I feel I must retain the existing limit of £50 in sub-section (2). I know that I undertook to leave the figure open, the amount of the compensation to be determined without limit, at my sole discretion, but that was at a time when the total liability I was undertaking for consequential loss was limited to sub-section (2). The position in that respect has since altered and I must ask the House not to press me further in regard to the £50 limit for removal expenses, etc.
So far as can be ascertained at the moment, the compensation scheme for war damage in Great Britain and Northern Ireland makes no provision for consequential loss, so that our Bill, even in its present form, is not less generous as regards consequential loss, generally, and in one respect at least goes further, than the British measure.
Am I to understand that the Minister's amendment, No. 4— the amendment which proposes to insert a new sub-section dealing with compensation to a person carrying on a trade, profession or business—covers people who used their houses for the accommodation of lodgers, or who had been receiving rents out of property?
The intention is that that type of case should be covered, and I am told that the draftsman has provided for that in the form of words before the House.
We made a promise on the last occasion that if the Minister would take this whole matter back, consider it for another week, and then bring in another amendment, we would listen to all he would have to say and say nothing ourselves. I was anxious to know whether in addition to loss of profits and wages, rents and the loss to a person who was living out of the letting of his own house in flats would be covered. It appears now that these matters are covered. At all events, the intention is to cover them, and the matter will be made right if they are not covered.
I understand the Minister's difficulty in fulfilling his promise with regard to unlimited liability for a particular type of consequential loss—that is to say, the expenses of removal, storage and so on—since he is not anywhere else responsible himself for making the final decision. He is leaving the final decision to the court. As the plan of the Bill stands, he is now accepting three different kinds of consequential loss—removal and storage, loss of profits and rents, and loss of wages to the extent of 15 per cent., or the sum of £150, whichever is the lesser. In the case of removals, there is a limit of £50. We had some misgivings at first about that Committee point, but I now see he is making it part of a whole. While I know those concerned will not be satisfied, I think there is considerable improvement in the Bill in certain respects, particularly in the case of poor people, who will have a breathing space for a couple of months in which to see where they are and to adjust themselves to the conditions. As the Bill stood, these people were getting nothing at all. I do not intend to move amendment No. 2. Perhaps the Minister would say when the order dealing with personal injuries will be made. I think it has not been made. At least, I have not seen it.
It has been made— or at least I read a proof of it within the last week—but it has not been published. It will not be long delayed, however.
I take it, from the last remark of the Minister, that it is only a matter of a short time before it will be published. It would be easy to take up the time of the House in bringing forward cases which have come to our notice, which are not covered by the Minister's amendments, but we undertook that, if the Minister were to go as far as he could to meet us, we would not take up the time of the House by arguing the general question any further. For that reason, I should like to follow the example of Senator Hayes in not pressing the matter further. I want to make it quite clear, however, that from my point of view I am not satisfied. But I should like to say that the Seanad owes a debt to the Minister, who has been placed in difficult circumstances, for the time and patience which he devoted in listening to the various arguments which we put forward. That does not mean that we are fully satisfied, and I do not suppose the Minister himself is quite satisfied, if we were to ask him for his private opinion. I do think, however, that we should all realise that the Minister has gone a long way towards meeting us, and while I am not convinced that there should be a limit of £150 or £50 as the case may be, I do feel that the wording of Section 10 is now much more satisfactory, from the point of view of principle, and that, even if, later on, it should prove to be necessary to deal with compensation in a different manner, we have now established a reasonable principle.
I should like to say, as one who pleaded very hard for some provision both for loss of profits and loss of wages, that at no time did I ever advocate that it should not be definitely limited. What I asked for—and have got, to the extent of two months instead of six—was a period which would make it possible—I am not now thinking of the past, but of the future—for a business to get on its feet again, possibly, in some other premises. I think the only right course for us to adopt now is to accept this amendment without entirely approving of it, or entirely objecting to it, but with the recognition that the Minister has gone much further than his position last week.
Senator Douglas, I think, has voiced the sentiment of all sides of the House with regard to the way in which the Minister has met the representations that were made to him. It seems to me that, in amendment No. 4, the Minister has met, as far as he could, the point with which most of us were concerned. As Senator Hayes has pointed out, most of us were concerned with the cases of the poorer people, whose means were altogether gone, or whose employment was altogether lost. These were the cases that we had in mind, and we wanted such people to be given what Senator Hayes called a breathing space. For that reason, we are most grateful to the Minister.
I also wish to thank the Minister for meeting the wishes of the House as far as possible. Senator Foran and I had something of a play of words last week, and I am sure that Senator Foran will be quite satisfied also that the Minister has met us fairly.
There is a peculiar variation here to which I should like to call attention. There is a formula, all through this Bill, which reads: "An injury to a building to which this Act applies", and it seems to be different here. It is very difficult to read it. Is it the case that it has got out of order here?
So it seemed to me, on reading it, but I had not time to go into the matter fully.
It is a matter that can be put right in the other House.
Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4 put and agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 not moved.
Government amendment No. 5a:—
In page 10, Section 13, lines 4 and 5, to delete the words and figures "or paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 18".
This is a drafting amendment consequential on Nos. 7 to 9, and the same applies to No. 6a.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6a:—
In page 11, Section 16, to delete lines 16 to 21 inclusive.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:—
In page 11, Section 16, in sub-section (2), lines 14 and 15, to delete the words and figures "paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 or paragraph (b) of Section 19 of this Act", and substitute the words and figures:—
"of this Act and any payments made by him in such year under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 or sub-section (2) of Section 19 of this Act".
This is also a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:—
In page 13, Section 18, in sub-section (1), page 13, to delete paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—
(b) if an application is made to the court for compensation under this Act in respect of the said injury and the court determines that the applicant is entitled to compensation under this Act in respect of the said injury, the court in assessing the amount of such compensation shall comply with the following provisions, that is to say:—
(i) the court shall determine the amount of such compensation without regard to the said expenditure by such local authority;
(ii) the court shall determine whether any and, if any, how much of the said expenditure was in alleviation or partial alleviation of the loss in respect of which compensation under this Act is awardable to the applicant;
(iii) if the amount determined by the court under the foregoing sub-paragraph (i) exceeds the amount determined by the court under the foregoing sub-paragraph (ii), the court shall award to the applicant compensation under this Act equal to the difference between those two amounts;
(iv) if the amount determined by the court under the said sub-paragraph (i) does not exceed the amount determined by the court under the said sub-paragraph (ii), the court shall not award to the applicant any compensation under this Act;
(v) if the court determines under this said sub-paragraph (ii) that none of the said expenditure was in such alleviation or partial alleviation as is mentioned in that sub-paragraph, the court shall award to the applicant the amount of compensation under this Act determined by the court under the said sub-paragraph (i).
With your permission, Sir, I should like to take amendments Nos. 7 to 9 together, since they deal with the same point. The first is consequential on the other two, which are the material ones. Where a local authority has come to the rescue and incurred expenditure—say, in a cash advance for furniture and/or clothing, or on repairs carried out themselves, or in recouping the cost of repairs carried out by the owner's own contractor—the amount of such expenditure as may be determined by the Minister falls to be deducted from the compensation awarded by the court; as the Bill stands, the court is required not to have regard to such expenditure or make any allowance or deduction in respect thereof.
It is felt, however, on further consideration, that where a claim goes to the Circuit Court the court should finally determine—subject, of course to any appeal to a higher court—all relevant matters and fix the net compensation payable, and that the Minister should have no discretionary functions in regard to deductions in respect of expenditure by the local authority; if dispute arose as to the amount to be deducted the fundamental purpose of having claims heard by the court would be defeated. Accordingly, as amendment No. 7 proposes, the matter will be left entirely to the court.
The position in relation to Section 19 is similar, and amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are designed to bring expenditure by a Government Department into line with what is proposed in the case of the local authority.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:—
In page 13, Section 19, to delete all words from the word "compensation" in line 29 and substitute the following words and paragraphs:—
"an application is made to the court for compensation under this Act in respect of the said injury and the court determines that the applicant is entitled to compensation under this Act in respect of the said injury, the court shall, in assessing the amount of such compensation, comply with the following provisions, that is to say:—
(a) the court shall determine the amount of such compensation without regard to the said expenditure of money in such reinstatement or repair;
(b) the court shall determine whether any and, if any, how much of the said expenditure was in alleviation or partial alleviation of the loss in respect of which compensation under this Act is awardable to the applicant;
(c) if the amount determined by the court under the foregoing paragraph (a) exceeds the amount determined by the court under the foregoing paragraph (b), the court shall award to the applicant compensation under this Act equal to the difference between those two amounts;
(d) if the amount determined by the court under the said paragraph (a) does not exceed the amount determined by the court under the said paragraph (b), the court shall not award to the applicant any compensation under this Act;
(e) if the court determines under the said paragraph (b) that none of the said expenditure was in such alleviation or partial alleviation as is mentioned in that paragraph, the court shall award to the applicant the amount of compensation under this Act determined by the court under the said paragraph (a)."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:—
In page 13, Section 19, to add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The Minister shall, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, recoup to every Minister of State, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and the Irish Land Commission respectively all (if any) money expended by him or them in any such reinstatement or repair as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section of this section.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On the Final Stage of this Bill there are certain matters to which I should like to refer. I have, for a considerable time, in conjunction with others, strongly advocated the provision of some kind of State war risk insurance. If the Government had seen its way to adopt some proposals when they were first mooted they would have very little immediate financial difficulty with regard to this Bill, because the premiums which would have been collected would, I think, have been very much greater than will be required to meet the damage up to the present. It seems to me—particularly since I have been present and taken part in all the discussions on this Bill—that even if the Government are still adamant against any kind of State insurance against war risks generally, it is of very great importance that they should now institute a scheme of insurance against war damage during the period while we are neutral. What I am suggesting is that if the State will not provide war risk insurance, should we become participants in the war, it should definitely have a scheme for additional insurance to provide compensation over and above that which is provided in this Bill during the period of time which may be covered by the Bill.
Now, I think that one of our difficulties—one of the difficulties I felt in discussing this Bill—was that we were, as it were, trying to kill two or, possibly, three birds with the one stone. We were torn between our concern for those who suffered loss in the North Strand, and the other areas which have been bombed, and the duty which many of us felt towards the people who had suffered, and with what should be a reasonable provision for the State to make for similar damage that might occur in the future; and also we were, to a lesser extent, concerned with the whole question of war risk and damage in the case of war.
If this Bill were accompanied by a scheme by which it would be possible for persons engaged in business and also private persons—though I am more concerned with people engaged in business who may have a large number of persons in their employment—to pay an annual or a monthly premium to insure for larger sums than provided in this Bill, I would be almost inclined to say that I felt that the Bill went as far, or perhaps even a little further in some respects, than the State could be expected to go in the matter of free compensation for damage. The great difficulty is that there is no such insurance. The Minister said that larger businesses would have to look after themselves. I personally do not know how that is to be done. It is, of course, true as the Minister said that the risk cannot be calculated. I cannot dispute that because it is true and, if it could be calculated, we would not be looking to the State to provide insurance. If there were a reasonably calculable risk, I feel certain that private insurance companies would undertake it.
I think one can say without any hesitancy at all, that the risk of damage of a general character while we are neutral must be very much less than if by any change of circumstances we should become participants in the war. Therefore, it seems to me having regard to the experience we have had in the past, and realising that this question may arise again in the future, that the Government should carefully consider whether they should not extend this Bill to provide for additional compensation, particularly on the question of profits and consequential losses, subject to the payment of an additional premium by those who desire extra provision against loss.
I think our position is quite different from that in England. It is some time since I read the British Act, which is on a rather different basis, and in any case provides for a completely different set of circumstances, but, as far as I remember, it provided that there should be a minimum amount of compensation which was to be given free, and after that damage was covered by insurance which has been compulsory there since the war. I would not object to such insurance being made compulsory here, at any rate in the cities. I put this forward because I feel it is a mistake to wait until damage has actually occurred before making any provision for it. One of the reasons why we have not a substantial sum of money collected at the present time to meet this outlay, is because steps were not taken at an earlier stage to provide such insurance.
One Senator said to me outside the House that those of us who advocated increased compensation under this Bill would have to be prepared to advocate increased taxes. In that connection, I should like to say that I have been advocating all along that there should be taxation in the shape of premiums which would provide funds and make money available for damage of this kind. I further advocated, and still advocate, that such taxation or premiums should be payable long after the war is over in order that the rate might be one that would be tolerable and that it should be continued as long as it was necessary to complete the cost of reconstruction. If of course a complete calamity, in which a large part of the property in the country were destroyed, were to come upon us possibly we might have to face a position in which the Government would have to say that the whole insurance scheme had collapsed and that they could not carry on with it. Nevertheless I believe that people would pay premiums for the additional security of a State war risk insurance scheme.
While I am on my feet, I should also like to suggest to the Minister that if he has to raise additional taxation to meet the outlay involved in this Bill, and if he is still unwilling to introduce a scheme of war-risk insurance, he might try to devise a specific and separate tax to pay for this particular damage. I believe that that would be very much healthier from the point of view of the general community and would be a much wiser way of dealing with a matter of this kind because the people generally would know then what exactly they had to pay for this particular damage. They would be able to say: "We have to pay these taxes to provide compensation for the people who suffered heavily while we got off scot free." If this tax is mixed up with general taxation, that point will not be appreciated. In the past some of the smaller States in Europe imposed special taxes to deal with special charges of this kind. I think the people generally ought to feel that they are paying these taxes to provide compensation for those of their fellow-citizens who suffered from this bombing and in whose position any of us might easily have found ourselves.
The Bill which we are now passing is substantially different from the measure introduced in the Dáil. It is also different from the measure that came to us from the Dáil. An important change which has been made here and which has been accepted by the Minister, provides that when the Minister makes an award and the applicant contests that award in court, the applicant will not necessarily have to pay costs even if he fails in his action. That is to say, the question of costs is left to the judge and is not decided beforehand. Three kinds of consequential losses are now recognised by the Bill—one for the removal and storage of furniture, another for loss of profits, including rents, and a third for loss of employment or wages. I think the House might congratulate itself upon having, in spite of a good deal of rather foolish talk about politicians and about how incompetent and bitter they are, dealt with the Bill so as actually to improve it for the benefit of those who have suffered losses by bombing. The House was certainly assisted by the attitude the Minister adopted. In present circumstances, I think we may regard the whole matter as a certain step forward, particularly for the Seanad itself.
The Minister said in dealing with one of the amendments that to deal with a certain situation would have been a step into the unknown. I think that is the position and that explains a good deal of his reluctance to undertake certain obligations. It is hardly possible to assume that this Bill says all that is to be said on the question of war damage to property, even during a state of neutrality. There are, I think, other matters which must be met. We all hope that damage during any period of neutrality will not be greater than it has been up to the present. If it is not, this Bill may be materially improved. If, on the other hand, very extensive damage is done I think it would be too much to hope for any improvement on the terms of this Bill.
Senator Douglas has mentioned the question of an insurance scheme. We debated that in the Seanad more than a year ago and I think the arguments for it are sounder now than they were then. When a Bill is introduced—I think a new Bill must be introduced— there are certain matters dealing with rates, leases and licences, and perhaps with types of ground rents, which must be dealt with. I think as inquiries and applications come into the Department of Finance, the Minister and the Department will get to know of cases which are not dealt with under this Bill at all or are not properly dealt with in the Bill. It seems to me inevitable that some other measure similar to the Dublin Reconstruction Act of 1924 must follow this particular type of Bill. I should like to appeal to the Minister to use the power, which he says he has, in the case of very great hardship to make a grant at the earliest possible moment even on account of the final amount to be awarded. An amendment dealing with interim payments was put down which was suggested to me by a Senator on the other side of the House who has a particular knowledge of these cases. The Minister told me—I think it is quite correct of course—that he has power to make interim payments. I think if that were done it would go a good way to alleviate the hardships of the poorer type of person.
But, while we are bidding good-bye to this Bill now, I feel sure, and I say it with considerable sympathy with the Minister, that it is by no means the last word on this matter. Even if no other incidents occur—and we hope and pray they will not—I think there are some aspects of this problem not dealt with in the Bill and, perhaps, not proper to a Finance Department measure at all, and I think those will have to be dealt with.
I need not tell the House that I am not sorry we have come almost to the end of the discussion on this Bill. Of course, it will have to come before the Dáil again, but it has been for me one that required an infinite amount of work and trouble. Not unlike other members of the House and the Dáil, I have human feelings, and I realise the sufferings of those who have been bombed out of their homes. I realise the tragedies which it brought into their lives, even where no actual loss of life occurred, through the breaking up of homes, the hurried removal, the breaking up of furniture, and, in the poorer cases, of their little belongings, and even in the case of the wealthier people the disappearance of many things that they valued, even though not intrinsically very valuable. I realise that all these things make life for these people, for the time being, and may be for a long time, very unpleasant indeed. If I were not Minister for Finance I could be much more vocal on that subject, but being Minister for Finance I have to bear in mind all the time the other point of view. We have to consider this matter, and I realise that Senators have to consider it too, in the light of the State and of the State's responsibility and the taxpayers' responsibility. We are all taxpayers as well as Senators and members of the Dáil, and this war has brought many heavy liabilities upon us. This particular measure arising out of the bombing will, in all probability, mean a very considerable addition to our taxation as well.
I do not know if it would be possible, as suggested by Senator Douglas, to arrange that any new taxation that might be introduced to meet the costs that would arise out of the payment of compensation under this Bill should be specifically earmarked for that purpose. It would be an unusual procedure in this country anyhow. Whether it would be possible or wise to do that I should like to have time to examine.
The question of war risk insurance was considered more than once by the Government. Important organisations representing business, industry, finance, and all those who would be primarily affected by a state of war so far as property was concerned, were consulted and there was certainly no enthusiasm for a measure of war risk insurance by a number of the most important businesses in this country. On the contrary, a number of them, at any rate, big ones—it would not be wise to specify—not alone did not give the Government any encouragement, but their advice was the other way. The Government certainly, at the instigation of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, did consider the matter more than once and, as I say, consulted people who ought to know.
Does the Minister know that the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Employers, and the Federation of Irish Industries —and I was present at the meetings of the three of them—advocated a scheme? So that whoever he is referring to must be outside those bodies. I mention that because I am more or less their representative here.
I can imagine some of the great industrialists I have in mind and whom I consulted being outside these bodies. They were consulted and they certainly were not, as I say, friendlily disposed to war risk insurance. It was, I think, one and a half years after the war when the British Government introduced a war risk insurance measure.
I may say as a director of a company interested that we paid almost from the beginning of the war.
That is my information, that it was one and a half years after the commencement of the war.
That was the second Bill.
I remember being present when certain interests were on a deputation about other matters and were consulted on the question of war risk insurance for supplies. They were big important industrialists and they did not give any support to the suggestion that was made. I happen to know that because I was present when the deputation was heard on the matter.
We have in this Bill made certain provision for compensation. I think I can say that adequate provision has been made for compensation for damage to property. I would not expect anybody to agree that we had made adequate or full provision with regard to consequential loss. But I realise that Senators themselves, even those who spoke most on this particular aspect, know the difficulties that would arise in endeavouring to make full provision for consequential loss, difficulties that even now, great as they are, we cannot foresee to the full. Taxation here is very heavy. Our taxation here was heavy even before the war started, and I need not tell the House how very much heavier it is now. Where subjects for new taxation are to be found, outside income-tax, I do not know. But with the prospect of the amount that will have to be met under this Bill and the responsibility that I know is accruing and will have to be met by the Exchequer for other expenditure before the next Finance Bill comes to be put before the Dáil, the question of additional taxation will have to be considered and it will be a very difficult task to meet the bill that the nation will be presented with next April or May.
I agree with Senator Hayes that this is not the final word with regard to compensation. We do not know what other problems are likely to arise. With him, I hope and pray that we have seen the end of the bombing in this country; but we do not know; we have no control over that. This bill that we will have to bear will probably be heavy enough, even taking into account the fact that we may get compensation from nations responsible for bombing here. But it would be foolish to imagine that any Bill that comes here or to the Dáil was the last word on the subject it dealt with. It would be more foolish still to imagine that a Bill of this kind, that deals with a situation of which we have had no experience in the past, would be the last word on the subject, and that there would not be an amending Bill at some future date. It is quite likely that amendments of some kind or other will be found necessary, and that the subject will be heard of again in this House, whether the war ends in a few months or goes on for another year or two.
Senator Hayes mentioned certain items that might be regarded strictly as consequential, and that Bills were brought in by the Minister for Local Government in previous years in relation to the Compensation Act of 1923. At least one Bill was brought in to cover the question of rents, rates and ground rents. I have had communication with the Minister for Local Government on that matter and brought it to his attention since the last meeting of the House. At present, I cannot say more than that. It is quite likely that what was found necessary in previous years may be found necessary this time. We have not had much to guide us in this country as far as legislation is concerned to cover the situation that we propose to cover in this Bill. It is to a large extent stepping into the unknown and, therefore, we have to tread very carefully and to commit ourselves to the least possible extent, bearing in mind that we do not want to do an injustice to anyone. I should like to thank Senators for the help given me with this Bill. It was a troublesome and a difficult Bill, one that afforded opportunities for those who might be interested to give a good deal of help to the Minister. I got that help given to me generously and fully. I am grateful to the whole House, and particularly to the Senators who took such an interesting part in the discussion, for the willing, generous and efficient help they gave.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: "That the Bill, as amended, be returned to the Dáil."