CLAUSE 4.—(Insured Person.) (Hansard, 5 August 1913)

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
I beg to move, after the word "that" ["show to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners that"], to insert the words "on or since attaining the age of sixty."
The Clause will then read:— Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section one of the principal Act shall have effect as if there were added thereto 'or, being of the age of sixty or upwards, show to the satisfaction of the Insurance Commissioners that'"— I have a consequential Amendment to leave out the word "have"— on or since attaining the age of sixty they have ceased to be insurable as employed contributors. In the original Act this Sub-section (3) deals with voluntary contributors. I suggest that unless we have some such words as these there will, in effect, be a lacuna as between the original Act and this Amending Bill, and it will be quite possible that persons who may have been insured for over five years, and have an income of possibly £1,000 or upwards, and yet will be able to enjoy the benefits of Section 1, Sub-section (3). As the Clause reads at present voluntary contributors under the 1307 original Act are confined to those who are either— engaged in some regular occupation and are wholly or mainly dependent for their livelihood on the earnings derived by them from that occupation; or (b) have been insured persons for a period of five years or upwards; and the persons possessing such qualifications who become or continue to be insured persons are in this Act referred to as voluntary contributors: Provided always that no person whose total income from all sources exceeds one hundred and sixty pounds a year shall be entitled to be a voluntary contributor unless he has been insured under this part of this Act for a period of five years or upwards. If, as a matter of fact, there has been a lapse in his insurance before he has attained the age of sixty years, under this provision in the Amending Bill it is quite possible that he may be possessed of an income of £1,000 a year, and may, because he has reached sixty, be entitled to become insured as a voluntary contributor. What I want is to secure that he is continually insured up to the age of sixty. If he is continually insured up to the age of sixty, the case I have in mind cannot arise. It is perfectly clear that if his income exceeds £160 a year, he cannot continue to be insured up to the age of sixty. Therefore, it is quite impossible for a man of large means to become at the age of sixty an insured person under this provision; whereas, if the five years have elapsed between the time he ceased to be an insured person, it might be taken under this Clause that he again becomes an insured person because he has reached the age of sixty. It is quite conceivable that although he might have become in the meantime a man of considerable means, he can find himself, unlike the rest of the community, in a position to become a voluntary contributor. I think I have shown to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a little lacuna which has not been noticed by the draftsman which requires to be put right in this way, otherwise it will be possible for a fairly rich man to become, what clearly he is not entitled to become, a voluntary contributor under the original Act. The point is a little difficult, but I hope I have made my meaning clear to the right hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
expressed dissent.

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
Apparently I have not made my meaning clear. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly consider what is going to happen under this Clause supposing that a person has had £160 a year up to five years ago, then ceased to be an employed contributor, and then reaches the age of sixty years. What is to prevent that man, because in the meantime he has become a man of wealth, becoming a voluntary contributor and being included under the advantages of Sub-section (3) of Section I? If that contingency is possible, I suggest that the only possible way to overcome it is to provide that no person shall have the benefit provided under Clause 4, unless it is given to him on or since attaining the age of sixty years. That is a contingency which I suggest might possibly arise.

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
This is largely a matter of drafting. My advisers tell me that the Clause as it stands fully carries out the intention of the Clause as passed in Committee. The intention was to prevent people being pushed out of the insurance altogether at the age of sixty by being compelled to retire on a pension, which is a very common thing under certain superannuation schemes. The idea was that it was very unfair that that person should not be allowed to continue as a voluntary contributor by the mere fact that he ceased to do work as an employed contributor. The "five years" applies to the five years before he becomes pushed out of insurance. I know the hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Bathurst) is keen on drafting points, and that he is a very expert draftsman. I will look into the subject. The Amendment only appeared on the Paper to-day. If necessary, it shall be put right. Our intention is the same.

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
I do not wish to press the Amendment, but I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers have not realised the importance of the point.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words "and where any persons who by virtue of this Section are entitled to become voluntary contributors become such contributors, the rate of contribution payable by 1309 them shall continue to be the employed rate."
This is consequential upon what the Committee did upstairs, and provides that persons after the age of sixty who keep in employment shall only pay the contribution at the employed rate, their reserve values having already been credited when they became insured persons. It is only fair that they should continue to pay at the employed rate.