HC Deb 24 November 1909 vol 13 c258

The Clause would involve in the case of amalgamation the passing of a private Bill. That seems to me to be absolutely unnecessary, and I beg to move.


The Government accept this Amendment. I think we have surrounded transfer and amalgamation with sufficient safeguards that we can dispense with this Clause.


I think this Clause is a great protection to the policy holders. Where the amalgamation of two companies take place and the policy holder does not give his consent in writing, he should still retain the same right as he possessed before amalgamation. Why should this Clause be omitted? This proposal was intended to provide security for the policy holders, and it is only fair that in case of amalgamation the security should remain as it was before the amalgamation takes place. I should like some further explanation why the Government has assented to the omission of this Clause, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give me an answer, because I think it is a serious matter from the point of view of the policy-holders.


We think that already ample security is given in the Bill to the policy-holders.

Amendment agreed to.