CLAUSE 27.—(Service of Notices.) (Hansard, 24 November 1909)

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
moved, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words:—
"Provided that where any person claiming to be interested in a policy has given to the company notice in writing of his interest and of his desire that notices should be sent to him at an address specified 261 in the notice, and notice which is by this Act required to be sent to policyholders shall also be sent to such person at the address so specified."
A policy holder is defined in Clause 30 as a person who, for the time being, is the legal holder of the policy. It is possible that the legal holder may have only a small pecuniary interest in the policy, and that a valuable policy may have been deposited as security for a debt. This provides that where any person besides the legal holder has given notice to the Company that person shall be entitled to the same notice as the actual legal holder.

§ Mr. BERTRAM
moved, in the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "and of his desire that notices should be sent to him at an address specified in the notice."
I have had some communication with the Department in reference to Clause 30 to which the right hon. Gentleman has made reference, and the definition there given of "policy bolder." It is said to mean the person who is the legal holder of the policy. That is a matter with regard to which no assurance office can have knowledge. Nobody at the assurance office can possibly tell who is the legal holder of a policy. Take, for instance, the case of a life policy deposited by a client with his solicitor. The solicitor goes bankrupt, and the whole of his papers are handed over to the trustee in bankruptcy, and the trustee in bankruptcy is the legal holder of that policy. I want notice to be given to every person who has any interest in the policy. Nobody in the Assurance office can tell what that interest may be, and the legal holder, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has said, may have the smallest interest. Every person who has given notice to the assurance company that he has an interest in a policy ought, to my mind, to be entitled to receive notice, and not merely if he has particularly asked the company to send him one if it becomes necessary. The effect of the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade as it stands would be that every person who at this moment has an interest in a policy and has given notice would not be notified, because none of the notices given up to this moment contain that request for the information, but every person who, after the date of this Bill, gives notice will receive notice of intended amalgamations and so on, and it seems to me to be most unreasonable that persons who are at present interested and have given notice should be ignored.

§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I quite recognise the force of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and of course we are endeavouring to secure the fullest serving of notices to all parties, but we want to be careful about this. When we originally discussed this Amendment, it was not quite realised how far the other parts of the Bill would be affected by amending the definition of a policy holder. The words occur frequently in the Bill, and any alteration in the meaning of a poilcy holder may produce a reaction. One result will be to constitute each person who has an interest in a policy a policy bolder. Clause 16 requires that a petition to wind up a company must be supported by 10 or more policy holders. The effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member on Clause 30 would be to enable 10 persons interested in a single policy to formulate a petition for winding up, whereas the Jaw intends 10 separate policy holders. I say that, not because I cannot meet the hon. Gentleman, but because I am anxious to show that we must move carefully. I do not mind, however, accepting his Amendment for the present.

§ Sir SAMUEL EVANS
It could be done by leaving out the words proposed to be left out and by adding at the end the words, "at the address to be specified by him in the notice."

§ Mr. BERTRAM
My trouble is that these notices are invariably given toy the solicitor as agent on behalf of the person interested. It is invariably given in this form, "I, A.B., of such an address, agent for John Smith, give you notice that by an indenture, dated so and so, John Smith became interested in the policy, so and so." I have given hundreds of these notices myself, and they are precisely in that form. The address of the person on whose behalf the notice is given is very seldom stated. The agent's address is given. The only people who will receive notice under the suggested Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman will be those who do not happen to have employed agents. Anybody who has employed an agent will toe ignored, though he has given perfectly good notice.

§ Sir SAMUEL EVANS
It stands to reason that, if a notice is required to be sent to any person interested in a policy, the assurance company must send it to the address given, whether it is given by the person interested or by a person on his behalf. The notice of the interest ought also I to state for the benefit of the company the 263 address to which notices should be sent. I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman should object to adding at the end the words, "and at the address to be specified by him in the notice."

§ Mr. BERTRAM
The words "to be specified" would exclude all existing notices You are excluding everybody who at this moment stands in the company's books as interested.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I confess, as one who has had some little experience in transferring interests in policies and giving notices to companies, that I think the Amendment proposed by the Government is a very reasonable and an exceedingly useful one. It does not make it compulsory. As the Amendment stood, every time you give a notice, you give a fresh address or some address to which communications may be sent. What it does say is that where an insurance company is requested by a person who claims to have an interest to send a notice to a given address, such notice as is required to be sent to policy holders shall also be sent to that specified address. That is quite reasonable. Not only do insurance companies which conduct this class of business do it, but every other company in the United Kingdom will, if it gets authority from the individual, who may, for instance, be entitled to a dividend, send communications in relation thereto to a specified address. I cannot see why either the original Amendment proposed by the Government or the exceedingly reasonable suggestion made by the Solicitor-General should not meet the case. I hope the hon. Member will not persist in his further Amendment. I understand he thinks there may be some difficulty in the way of recognised agents sending in communications to insurance companies.

§ Mr. BERTRAM
No.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
Then I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman objects.

§ Mr. BERTRAM
Let me put an imaginary case. The hon. Member opposite insures his life for £20,000 and he borrows £500 from me on the security of the policy. I give notice to the office in which he is insured. My interest is ridiculously small, while his is so great. The office, although having received notice from me will, as the Bill now stands, should it propose to amalgamate with another office, notify the hon. Member but not me.

§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I think the hon. Member is quite wrong on that point, which is covered by the concluding words proposed by the President of the Board of Trade. The insurance company would have my address and they would also have his address as the lender of the money, and any communication sent out would be despatched to both addresses. Suppose I chose to leave home and go to New Zealand for twelve months, why should I not be able to notify the company to send any communication to my agents, bankers, or solicitors? That is all the Amendment proposes. I say it is an exceedingly useful Amendment, and I repeat I hope the hon Member will not persist in his further Amendment.