HL Deb 07 January 1915 vol 18 cc313-7
LORD SOUTHWARK

My Lords, I rise to call attention to the Prime Minister's reply to the letter of Mr. Walter R. Rea, M.P., in relation to the loss of life and destruction of property caused by the bombardment of Scarborough, Hartlepool, and Whitby by the Germans; and to ask for further information. In doing so, I should like to say that as President of the London Chamber of Commerce I had the honour two or three weeks ago—that is to say, before the bombardment—of introducing to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade an influential deputation consisting of members of the London Chamber, of the Corporation of London, and others largely interested in the trade and prosperity of London. We urged upon Mr. Runciman that the State should assume entire liability for all losses sustained to property through either aircraft or bombardment. Mr. Runciman, who received us very kindly, said that he could not agree to this, but he invited us to prepare an outline of such scheme of insurance which he promised to consider carefully and sympathetically.

Since then, as you all know, the bombardment has taken place with cruel and disastrous results as to loss of life and damage to property in the towns I have named. This has been followed by a very kind and sympathetic letter from the Prime Minister to the Member for Scarborough, in which he states that— The Government have resolved to provide relief from the Imperial funds in respect of damage to persons and property sustained in the recent bombardment. My special object to-day is to ask His Majesty's Government whether by that letter the country is to understand that His Majesty's Government intend that all future losses sustained through aircraft or bombardment will be fully borne by the State. The matter is one of a serious and important character greatly affecting the Commercial stability of the country, and it ought not to be left in even temporary doubt.

As many of your Lordships are aware, the Fire Insurance Companies positively decline to take any further risks. To avoid making any inaccurate statements to the House I have taken steps to secure reliable information. After repeated deliberations the Fire Offices' Committee (which includes all the established tariff companies) decided that the insurance of property against damage from enemy aircraft was outside their province and could not be covered by the Fire Companies. Insurances to a considerable extent have been effected at Lloyds, but facilities for covering large mercantile risks are non-existent at, the present moment. The whole machinery by which commercial and personal property is guaranteed against a common danger has broken down in regard to the risk of loss arising from enemy aircraft or warships. Commerce and property must be protected against all such incidental risks, or trade will be hampered and the sense of security weakened.

I would like to remind your Lordships that amongst other things we have to remember the liabilities of trustees and the questions that arise through mortgages on property. So far as I am concerned, I am dealing to-day only with the question of losses to property. As regards loss of life and damage to persons, that is a more complicated and difficult question and requires very careful consideration. Damage to property arising from war risks cannot be adequately covered. But loss of life and personal damage cases can be, and in the majority of cases are, covered by insurances with the leading life and accident companies and in other ways. It is an entirely different question and ought not to be mixed up with the property question. I am not going to deal with that now. Personally I urge that there ought not to be any shadow of doubt upon the subject. This is not a personal but a national question. We know not when or how the next disaster is going to take place. We cannot say whether the property attacked and damaged will be private, public, or mercantile. The other day I heard a large wharfinger say that he wanted to insure for £700,000. It is a terrible thing to think that such a loss could fall on a company or individual and that it should be an individual loss.

I look upon all these damages from aircraft or bombardment as a national loss, and we ought all to take our share in meeting the liability. I never felt that there was a question more clear or one that ought to be accepted immediately; and I believe the Government would have the entire approval of the country if, in addition to doing the good work they have done in finance, they would say that they were going to take over this liability for the State. If this liability is taken over by the State it will, of course, cost the State nothing unless the disasters take place. If disasters take place and the State has undertaken to pay the liabilities, there will be no question of premiums, organisation, complications, or expenses of any sort beyond those incurred by the tribunal called upon to deal with the individual claims as they arise after each disaster. If the question of damage by aircraft and bombardment was dealt with by such a tribunal as the Railway Commission with expert assessors, or 1w the Admiralty Court which deals with compensation questions, I think in that way general satisfaction would be given, and it would be only fair and right.

In speaking to various people I have heard only one or two objections. One was to this effect, "Oh, I am insured; let others do the same." That is all very well, but one cannot now insure even if one wishes. Another objection was that what was being advocated would not be acceptable to those who live away from the coast, in the Midlands or elsewhere at a distance. I treat neither of these objections as serious. The man who lives away from the coast, in the Midlands or elsewhere, ought to be very thankful that he is not living in a neighbourhood which he considers dangerous, and I would remind any one who raises the objection that he is living away from the coast that aircraft travel a great distance and might even be found in these localities which are thought to be Safe. But, as I have said, I do not treat the objection seriously. I have a good opinion of my fellow-countrymen, and I cannot believe that any right-minded citizen would desire to shield himself under the excuse that as he is not in danger himself those who are living on the coast and thus in danger should take all the liability themselves. This is such a practical common sense question that I cannot conceive that His Majesty's Government requires much time to make up its mind upon it. The financial arrangements hitherto made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government in regard to the war have been carried out so satisfactorily that I feel I can appeal to His Majesty's Government to go one step further and adopt what I think would be a wise, fair, and reasonable policy, a policy which would relieve the public mind and do a great deal to maintain the commercial stability of the country. I hope that my noble friend Lord Beauchamp, who is going to reply for the Government, will be able to give a favourable answer to my Question.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP)

My Lords, I think that in the first place your Lordships would wish an expression of concurrence with the feelings of the country generally of deep sympathy for those afflicted towns which suffered so greatly from the senseless and wanton bombardment from the German ships, deep sympathy with them in the loss which they suffered both of civilian life and of civilian property. But I am afraid that beyond that I am not very likely to receive the approval of my noble friend behind me, because I am unable to tell him that His Majesty's Government have yet been able to publish the exact lines upon which they propose to proceed. The noble Lord himself has studied the subject quite sufficiently to know that it is surrounded with difficulties and also with perplexities; and in those circumstances I do not think it is unreasonable that His Majesty's Government should ask for further time before they make public the exact details of the relief they propose. But I think, in view of some of the expressions which fell from my noble friend behind me, that I should remind your Lordships of the terms of the letter to which he referred. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister said— The Government have resolved to provide relief from the Imperial funds in respect of damage to persons and property sustained in the recent bombardment. I can assure your Lordships that without any undue delay His Majesty's Government will make public the exact details of their proposals.

THE EARL OF DURHAM

My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's speech I should like to point out that the bombardment took place on December 16. From that date until January 4 His Majesty's Government had not sent down any assessors to discover what damage had been done. This is causing very great inconvenience to the poorer population who have suffered by the bombardment. They naturally do not like to repair their houses, which in some cases have been only slightly damaged, because they say "The Government assessor will come down and find our house in proper repair and will then say, 'We cannot recompense you; we do not know what damage has been done.'" In the Hartlepools I know for a fact that employers of labour are very much perturbed at the fact that His Majesty's Government have not sent down any assessors, although the Prime Minister very rightly promised in his letter that compensation would be afforded by His Majesty's Government. This is a letter I have received from the Chief Constable of the County of Durham, under date January 4, 1915— I have made inquiry in the two towns and find that no instructions have been received from the Government; but both our borough councils are taking steps on their own account to inquire as to the amount of damage done. The people in the Hartlepools would be glad to hear that His Majesty's Govern, merit will send down assessors, or, if they do not, that they will accept the statements made to them by the local authorities who have been inquiring into the damage done.