§ Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section ten of the principal Act insured persons who are in arrear shall be liable to such suspension or reduction of benefits as may be prescribed so, however, that any such reduction or suspension of benefit shall be approximately equivalent to the value of the loss occasioned by the failure to pay the contributions in arrear, and the provisions of the principal Act regulating the suspension and reduction of benefits on account of arrears shall cease to have effect, and the regulations may prescribe the time within which, and the conditions under which, arrears may be paid up.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI beg to move, after the word "regulations" ["the regulations may prescribe"], to insert the words "of the Insurance Commissioners." This Clause deals with the calculation of arrears—
§ Mr. MASTERMANI agree.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Mr. GEORGE HAMILTONI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
And shall prescribe that if at any time after suspension from benefits an insured person becomes employed, and within three months thereafter becomes a member of an approved society, there shall be credited to such approved society a reserve value applicable to his age as if he had then joined insurance for the first time, and at a date within one year from the passing of the principal Act.It appears to me that though this is a somewhat complicated matter, at the same time there are insured persons who are sent abroad to work, and are absent for perhaps two years, and it might well be that, while they are absent, they might become suspended. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman how a suspended person can get back into insurance if there is no reserve value credited to his society. I do not know whether the same question 1326 applies to an expelled person, but it looks to me that some persons who return from abroad would find that they could not get the society to take them back as there was not a reserve value to its credit.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI do not want to take any unfair point; but surely, if some of these people are to be brought back into insurance it must necessarily mean an increased charge so far as the two-ninths of the benefit are concerned.
Mr. HAMILTONI understand that this reserve value will not be an increased charge. It will come out of the reserve value fund; and if a man, once suspended, could not get back into insurance, surely you would be punishing him for life in respect of a small offence; he never could get back into any approved society.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI agree, but this question was not raised by the hon. Gentleman in Committee, otherwise we might have had an interesting discussion. But surely, if you bring persons back into insurance it must be an increased charge on the taxpayer in respect of two-ninths of the benefit which would not otherwise have to be paid.
§ Mr. FORSTERIf the right hon. Gentleman takes that view, surely he should address himself, not to my hon. Friend, but to the Chair!
§ Mr. SPEAKERI confess I am not sufficiently skilled in this matter to be able to detect these things until I hear the arguments, but I think it is clear—
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSBefore you rule, Sir, on the matter, may I point out that my hon. Friend is asking that a man who is suspended from benefit and goes out of insurance shall have the reserve value which was his before he went away when he comes back? He had a reserve value before he went away, and, when he comes back, he does not increase the charge, because he has that reserve value which was his before he went out. What my hon. Friend wants is that if the man comes back he should have that reserve value.
§ Mr. MASTERMANIf he comes back, and comes into insurance, there must necessarily be an increased cost to the State with respect to the two-ninths of the benefit.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe real question is that the person has the reserve value before he goes out, and the same reserve value will do for him when he comes back.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThat is not the proposition before the Committee. The proposition is for a new reserve value and a new insurance, and the old reserve value remains; and of the new reserve value for a new insured person, the State pays two-ninths.
§ Mr. CASSELI submit that the Amendment makes no greater charge than the original proposal made in Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman's argument that it would be a greater charge should have been made in Committee.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not profess to understand all these matters, but having heard the arguments, I think that the Amendment does increase the charge. A man comes back and finds that his former status as an insured person has disappeared, and he has to start de novo. In consequence the charge is increased.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThis is not exactly a point of Order, but I wish to point out that we will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I do not want to rule out any suggestion which is made in good faith, but which I am quite sure is not in order.
Mr. HAMILTONMay I withdraw the Amendment? I do hope the Government will consider the platter, as it seems to me there will be very great hardship.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSWould I be in order in moving to omit the Clause for the purpose of discussing its provisions? If so, I will move to that effect.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat cannot now be done, as an Amendment was moved.