HL Deb 31 August 1909 vol 2 cc1022-70

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not wish to delay your Lordships except to express my thanks to the noble Lord and the Board of Trade for their courtesy in furnishing me with a copy of the Bill in which there have been marked the parts which are new and the parts which are merely consolidating. I ventured to call attention to the desirability of doing so at the time of the Second Reading of the Bill. I feel that it is a very great compliment that this should have been done for me and for me alone. That was not altogether my intention. I am not qualified to form an opinion worth mentioning on a Bill of such a technical character, but there are members of your Lordships' House who are com-

†See further statement made by Lord Crewe at the rising of the House.

petent to do so, and to them it would have been of more service than to me to have this marked copy. But the real importance of the matter is that it shows that it can be done. I venture to think, therefore, that on future occasions we might have similar Bills not laboriously drawn in manuscript as mine is but printed in this form so that all your Lordships might know what is new and what is merely consolidating.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

We were very glad to give the noble Marquess a copy of the Bill marked in different coloured inks. It is extremely difficult to get a Bill printed in the same way, though it may be possible to have one or two copies made by hand.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think the ingenuity of the noble Lord could get over that difficulty.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

VISCOUNT MILNER had a number of Amendments on the Paper to Clause 1, the effect of the Amendments being that wherever the word "policies" occurred there should be inserted immediately afterwards the words "or other contracts." The clause ran— 1. This Act shall apply to all persons or bodies of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, not being registered under the Acts relating to friendly societies or to trade unions (hereinafter referred to as assurance companies), whether established before or after the commencement of this Act and whether established within or without the United Kingdom, who carry on within the United Kingdom assurance business of all or any of the following classes:—

  1. (a) Life assurance business; that is to say, the issue of, or the undertaking of liability under, policies of assurance upon human life, or the granting of annuities upon human life.
  2. (b) Fire insurance business; that is to say, the issue of, or the undertaking, of liability under, policies of insurance against loss by or incidental to fire;
  3. (c) Accident insurance business; that is to say, the issue of, or the undertaking of liability under, policies of insurance upon the happening of accidents, whether fatal or not, disease, or sickness, or any class of accidents, disease, or sickness;
  4. (d) Employers' liability insurance business; that is to say, the issue of, or the undertaking of liability under, policies insuring employers against liability to pay compensation or damages to workmen in their employment;
    5. 1024
  5. (e)Bond investment business; that is to say, the business of issuing bonds or endowment certificates by which the company, in return for subscriptions payable at periodical intervals of two months or less, contract to pay the bond holder a sum at a future date, and not being life assurance business as hereinbefore defined;
subject as respects any class of assurance business to the special provisions of this Act relating to business of that class: A company registered under the Companies Acts which transacts assurance business of any such class as aforesaid in any part of the world shall for the purposes of this provision be deemed to be a company transacting such business within the United Kingdom. The noble Viscount explained that the Amendments standing in his name had originally been in the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who was, however, unable to be present. These Amendments, speaking generally, represented the alterations in the Bill desired by what he might call the federation of the great fire insurance offices. They represented the views of very wealthy and powerful organisations which by general consent had a very creditable history and a reputation for stability and trustworthiness not only in this country but throughout the whole world. These offices were not taking up an attitude of hostility to the Bill, but were submitting Amendments merely to provide for some things which it was felt ought to be done, and which they themselves did independently of legal compulsion. They felt that there were certain points in which the Bill was capable of amendment. Those matters were taken up originally on their behalf by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, but when, owing to Lord Balfour's absence, the Amendments fell through, the offices had great difficulty at this time of the year in obtaining another spokesman in their Lordships' House, because the situation happened quite suddenly and recently, and amid the general dispersal of their Lordships. It was only with the greatest reluctance that he agreed himself to put down the Amendments, not because he did not agree with them—he thought they were all very reasonable—but because he would have preferred that they should have been moved by some one who was not a director of one of these companies. One was open to the suspicion of being interested in one's own case, but he hoped to be able to put the case in a way which would acquit him of having any other wish in the matter than that the reasonable views of these great and powerful corporations, which were certainly entitled to every con- sideration Parliament could give them, should be considered by their Lordships' House. Fortunately the Amendments, though numerous, were easy to explain, and the first Amendment could be explained in a couple of sentences. Its object was that after the word "policies," wherever that word occurred in the first clause, the words "or other contracts" should be inserted. This seemed to him a necessary Amendment, because there were many contracts of insurance which did not take the form of a regular policy, and without the words which he proposed to insert the Bill would fail in its application to a wide sphere of insurance business. He would give only a single instance, but it was an important one—that of the different agreements made for what was known as reinsurance, which, as their Lordships were aware, was a very important part of insurance business. Agreements for reinsurance did not generally take the form of policies; they were constantly effected by letter, and often by a series of verbal communications subsequently embodied in a schedule which the two parties signed. The proposal he submitted to the Committee was that such business, whether it was reinsurance business or insurance business of another kind contained in documents other than policies, should not be left out of the scope of the Bill.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 15, after the word 'policies,' to insert the words 'or other contracts.'"—(Viscount Milner.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said he fully admitted the great importance of the interest which the noble Viscount represented. It was an interest which had been given the fullest possible hearing, and to which the greatest importance was attached by the Board of Trade. The noble Viscount had given what he described as an instance, but he thought it was rather more than an instance. Reinsurance, he was informed, was the only fonts of insurance business not carried out by a policy, and would, therefore, be the only form affected by the Amendment.

VISCOUNT MILNER

It is a large body of the business.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said that, though very large and very important, reinsurance was not the class of business which the Bill was intended to protect. All the provisions of the Bill in regard to publicity and in regard to deposits were inserted for the protection of the public, who, it might be supposed, would otherwise be unable to look after themselves and investigate the stability of the insurance companies. Reinsurance, however, was effected among the various insurance companies, and those great corporations were perfectly capable of looking after themselves. It was most undesirable to interfere with the course of business where it could not be shown to be absolutely necessary to do so, and on these grounds the Government could not accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN was not convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord that his noble friend on the Cross Benches was wrong in this Amendment. He did not see why there should not be the same amount of protection as between one company and another as between companies and the public. Every one acquainted with this class of business knew what an enormous amount of reinsurance business was done between the various companies concerned. He suggested that the point would be better dealt with on the interpretation clause. The noble Viscount had an Amendment on the Paper to this clause— Clause 28—by which he sought to provide that the expression "policy" should include any instrument evidencing a contract of insurance; and it would seem that if any change was to be made in the Bill on the point in question it might more appropriately be made in that clause than in Clause 1.

LORD AVEBURY hoped His Majesty's Government would see their way to accept the Amendment in some form or other. Unless it was inserted all the other provisions in the Bill dealing with policies of insurance would not apply to contracts between insurance companies, and therefore the companies would find some difficulty in making out the returns required under the Bill.

VISCOUNT MILNER said it was clear that there was a considerable body of opinion in the Committee in favour of his Amendment. It was a little difficult to say whether the Amendment had better be introduced in this clause or in a later clause. If the noble Lord could give him an assurance that the Government would deal with the point on Report and provide that words should be inserted which would make the Bill applicable to contracts of reinsurance he would not press the Amendment. But it was highly important that the Bill should so apply.

THE EARL OF CREWE

The noble Viscount says that a considerable body of opinion is in favour of the Amendment. It is quite true that three noble Lords, speaking on behalf of insurance companies, have expressed the opinion that this would be a desirable addition to the Bill, but my noble friend has pointed out that in the view of the Board of Trade it is not the business of the Government, in framing a Bill of this kind for the protection of the public, to deal with what really are private proceedings taking place between different companies. I confess that there does seem to anybody outside that mystic circle a very considerable difference between the two things. The ordinary insurer is a comparatively helpless person, but it seems to me that it demands something more than mere assertion when it is said that it is necessary that these safeguards should be applied to the great companies who have dealings, no doubt of a most reasonable and sensible kind, with each other for the purpose of dividing up large insurances and for reinsurance generally. All that we have heard from noble Lords is a statement of their opinion that it ought to be done, but they have given no reason.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY expressed surprise that the noble Earl should speak with a certain amount of disdain of the measure of support which the Amendment had received in their Lordships' House.

THE EARL OF CREWE

No disdain at all.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said it was true that only three noble Lords bad supported the Amendment, but they were three of the most distinguished members of their Lordships' House.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I quite agree.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said the three noble Lords who had spoken in support of the Amendment had an intimate acquaintance with the subject. If the support of an Amendment was to be counted by the number of speakers in its favour the proceedings of their Lordships' House would be reduced to the level of those of the House of Commons. He hoped the noble Viscount would adopt Lord St. Aldwyn's suggestion and take the decision upon the Amendment when the interpretation clause was reached. That would be a shorter and more complete way of dealing with the matter.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL hoped the noble Viscount would adopt that course. He had given the reasons why the Government did not consider the Amendment necessary, but if the noble Viscount would postpone it they were prepared to reconsider the matter.

VISCOUNT MILNER

I shall be happy to do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved an Amendment to bring within the scope of the Bill "the issue of policies by which the payment of money is assured at a future date, independently of any life or other contingency, and not being bond investment business as hereinafter defined." He said it was just as important to ensure the fulfilment of a contract in the case of a sinking fund policy or a leasehold redemption policy as it was to fulfil a contract on life or against fire. In this matter he represented the life offices, and the Amendments standing in his name had been put down from the point of view of the life offices more especially, though some of them applied to other insurance companies as well. The whole of his Amendments really came back to this point, that the English policy holder, whatever the risk might be that he had insured against, should have as much protection as was possible against failure to fulfil the obligations entered into.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 16, after the word 'life' to insert the words 'or the issue of policies by which the payment of money is assured at a future date, independently of any life or other contingency, and not being bond investment business as hereinafter defined.'"—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said there was an objection to the Amendment which struck one at once. The noble Lord proposed to include with life assurance business a totally different kind of business—namely, sinking fund and capital redemp- tion policies. If it was necessary to include those forms of business within the scope of the Bill it was clear that this was not the right place to do it. They ought to be grouped with other companies carrying on approximately the same kind of business, such as bond investment business. With regard to the advisability of including this class of business at all, the Government did not think it was necessary. Bond investment business had been included because the people who took out bond investment policies were poor people who had shown themselves peculiarly liable to be misled. In the case of sinking fund policies and capital redemption policies there was not such strong reason for inclusion, because those companies did business in large sums with people who understood fully the nature of the bargain into which they entered.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN could not agree with the noble Lord that all sinking fund business or endowment business not included in subsection (e) of Clause 1 was conducted by persons who were well able to take care of themselves. These insurances were effected in many cases for sums by no means large, and he saw no reason, if bond investment business was included, why sinking fund business or the ordinary endowment business conducted by life assurance companies should be excluded. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill was quite right in declining to accept the Amendment in this subsection, but he hoped he would reconsider the matter and include it on Report.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the Government would be prepared to reconsider the matter on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to amend subsection (4)— (4) Where a company carries or intends to carry on assurance business of more than one class a separate sum shall be deposited and kept deposited under this section as respects each class of business, and the deposit made in respect of any class of business in respect of which a separate assurance fund is required to be kept shall be deemed to form part of that fund, and all interest accruing due on any such deposit or the securities in which it is for the time being invested shall be carried by the company to that fund, by inserting, after the word "sum," the words "of twenty thousand pounds."

Amendment moved— In page 2, line 36, after the word 'sum,' to insert the words 'of twenty thousand pounds.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to amend subsection (2)— (2) A fund of any particular class shall be as absolutely the security of the policy holders of that class as though it belonged to a company carrying on no other business than assurance business of that class, and shall not be liable for any contracts of the company for which it would not have been liable had the business of the company been only that of assurance of that class, and shall not be applied, directly or indirectly, towards the discharge of any liabilities under any such contract, by deleting from the end of the section the words "towards the discharge of any liabilities under any such contract," and inserting, in their place, the words "for any purposes other than those of the class of business to which the fund is applicable."

Amendment moved— In page 3, to leave out line 33 and to insert the words 'for any purposes other than those of the class of business to which the fund is applicable.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4, 5, and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to add, at the end of subsection (1)— (1) Every account, balance sheet, abstract or statement hereinbefore required to be made shall be printed, and four copies thereof, one of which shall be signed by the chairman and two directors of the company and by the principal officer of the company and, if the company has a managing director, by the managing director, shall be deposited at the Board of Trade within six months after the close of the period to which the account, balance sheet, abstract, or statement relates, a proviso to the effect that, if in any case it was made to appear to the Board of Trade that the circumstances were such that a longer period than six months should be allowed, the Board might extend that period by such period not exceeding three months as they thought fit. The period allowed by the old Act was nine months, but it was considered desirable that this should be reduced to six months. The Amendment was moved at the instance of certain colonial assurance companies in distant parts of the world, for whom a period of six months would not be sufficient for the preparation and deposit of accounts with the Board of Trade.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 35, after the word 'relates,' to insert the words 'Provided that, if in any case it is made to appear to the Board of Trade that the circumstances are such that a longer period than six months should be allowed, the Board may extend that period by such period not exceeding three months as they think fit.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 11 agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved the insertion of a new clause, the object of which would, he thought, be obvious on the face of it. It was designed to meet the case of companies which had a high sounding capital of, perhaps, a million, whereas only a small portion of that capital might be actually paid up and available to meet creditors in case of trouble. It was proposed by this Amendment that the real financial position of the company should be made clear.

Amendment moved— After Clause 11, to insert the following new clause:— 'Where any notice, advertisement, or other official publication of an assurance company contains a statement of the amount of the authorised capital of the company, the publication shall also contain a statement of the amount of the capital which has been subscribed and the amount paid up.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12:

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said his next Amendment dealt with the case where two or more independent companies amalgamated, and it provided that in all those cases a report should be made by an independent actuary, not being an actuary connected with any of the companies, for the guidance of the policy holders. This was no reflection whatever on the actuaries, and he believed it was proposed at the request of the Institute of Actuaries. It was thought more satisfactory that such an independent report should invariably be made.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 24, after the word 'founded,' to insert the words 'including a report by an independent actuary.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to omit from subsection 3, which ran— Before any such application is made to the Court—

  1. (a) Notice of the intention to make the application shall be published in the Gazette; and
  2. (b) A statement of the nature of the amalgamation or transfer, as the case may be, together with an abstract containing the material facts embodied in the agreement or deed under which the amalgamation or transfer is proposed to be effected, and copies of the actuarial or other reports upon which the agreement or deed is founded, shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be transmitted to each policy holder of each company in case of amalgamation, or to each policy holder of the transferred company in case of transfer, in manner provided by section one hundred and thirty-six of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, for the transmission to shareholders of notices not requiring to be served personally; and
  3. (c) The agreement or deed under which the amalgamation or transfer is effected shall be open for the inspection of the policy holders and shareholders at the offices of the companies for a period of fifteen days after the publication of the notice in the Gazette,"
the words, "in case of amalgamation, or to each policy holder of the transferred company in case of transfer." These words appeared in paragraph (b). He did not see why there should be any distinction made, and why information should be sent to policy holders of each company in case of amalgamation but only to policy holders of the transferred company in case of transfer.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 20, to leave out the words 'in case of amalgamation, or to each policy holder of the transferred company in case of transfer.'"—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL agreed that there was no hard and fast line of distinction, but the words were taken from the clause in the old Act. They had worked with perfect smoothness in the past, and the Board of Trade did not see their way to altering them.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU asked what the difference to the policy holder was between amalgamation and transfer. He was in favour of the fullest information being given to every one, but did not see why it should be done in one case and not in the other.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN thought the difference between amalgamation and transfer was probably this. When two companies were amalgamated the shareholders of one company might be paid by shares of the other company. That would be an amalgamation, and both would be shareholders of one company. But in the case of a transfer one company might entirely buy up the other for cash down, which would be a different thing.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the noble Viscount had correctly suggested the difference, and that was, no doubt, what was in the minds of the framers of the old Act. It was not, however, a point on which the Board of Trade felt strongly, and they would be prepared to accept the Amendment if the noble Lord pressed it.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU said he desired to press the Amendment. As the clause stood it was a distinction without a difference.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MILNER moved to further amend the clause by adding a proviso that wherever in the case of amalgamation the amalgamating companies, or either of them, or in the case of transfer, the transferred company carried on another or other class or classes of assurance business in addition to the business of life assurance, it should not be necessary to transmit such statement to the policy holders of such companies or company other than life policy holders. This was a matter of very great simplicity, and he did not think there was any reason why the Board of Trade should not accept the Amendment, especially as it appeared from subsequent Amendments of their own that they realised the necessity of some provision of this kind. It was necessary that security should be provided for persons assured, but beyond that it was undesirable to put difficulties in the way of amalgamation. When life assurance companies amalgamated the assured should have full notice, for theirs were long continuance contracts, but fire, accident, and employers' liability contracts were renewed from year to year, and if every one of these persons, some of whom might be abroad and could only be reached by letters taking weeks, had to be informed before amalgamation could take place, it would be a useless and serious obstacle in the way.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 32, after the word 'personally' to insert the words 'Provided that wherever in the case of amalgamation the amalgamating companies, or either of them, or in the case of transfer, the transferred company carries on another or other class or classes of assurance business in addition to the business of life assurance it shall not be necessary to transmit such statement to the policy holders of such companies or company other than life policy holders.'"—(Viscount Milner.)

*LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the Government agreed that the regulation should not be extended to employers' liability policies. Though the policy might only run for a year the workman might become entitled to payment for the whole of his life under a policy of insurance of that kind, and he thought that brought the business of employers' liability into the same category with life business and that the same safeguard ought to be given.

LORD AVEBURY said there was a strong feeling among fire insurance offices that as contracts for fire insurance were only for a year they should be excluded. He did not understand whether the noble Lord agreed to their exclusion. As regarded the other forms of insurance, he would have thought that being for a short period they might also be excluded, as suggested by Lord Milner.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the point which the noble Lord had raised was dealt with by a subsequent Amendment standing in his (Lord Hamilton's) name. The Government had conceded that point.

VISCOUNT MILNER said the difference between himself and the noble Lord in charge of the Bill was a substantial difference but was confined within a narrow sphere, because the Government by a subse- quent Amendment of their own met the offices in so far as fire policies and accident policies were concerned, but not in so far as employers' liability was concerned. He could not see what reason there was for treating an employers' liability policy, which was an annual policy, differently. He did not deny that there was a certain force in what the noble Lord had said as to the inclusion of employers' liability policies, but he could not think it was reasonable that every person in receipt of a weekly payment or even an annual payment in compensation for an accident of some small account should be entitled to object to the amalgamation of the company which made him that payment. He did not think it was an interest of the same order as in the case of life policies. If he thought there was the slightest danger of the parties so insured suffering through an amalgamation he would be the first to agree with the noble Lord, but it seemed to him that their case was absolutely provided for in other parts of the Bill. By the Fourth Schedule every company doing employers' liability or accident business was compelled to give the particulars of every single claim to which they had become liable, and in their revenue statements under the First Schedule they were practically compelled to show that they had assets covering those liabilities. Therefore under the Bill persons who had continuing payments stretching over years to receive from insurance companies under employers' liabilty policies were so absolutely safeguarded that it was not really necessary to introduce the exceptional complication of having to send notices to every one of those persons whenever one of the companies contemplated amalgamation. The matter was of such importance that he hoped the Government would be able to accept the whole of his Amendment instead of three-fourths of it, as they already did.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said that as far as he understood the Bill the provision in this subsection regarding notice would not at all affect those persons in whom the noble Lord who represented the Government was interested—namely, the persons to whom some payment was made as the result of an insurance effected by their employer under the Employers' Liability Act—because they were not policy holders. If these persons ought to have notice, and probably they ought, that provision would have to be made in some other part of the Bill. He could not support the Amend- ment in its present form. The noble Viscount proposed that if the amalgamating or transferred company carried on another or other class or classes of insurance business in addition to the business of life assurance, it should not be necessary to transmit such statement to the policy holders of such companies or company other than life policy holders. But he was sure the noble Viscount would agree that in the case of a company carrying on endowment business or any business of that sort, persons who held such policies ought to have notice of any amalgamation or transfer. He suggested that the Amendment might be withdrawn now and brought up on the Report stage.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the Government were prepared to consider the matter again before Report, but he could give no promise that they were at all likely to accept the Amendment.

LORD KINNAIRD thought it would be better to insert the Amendment now, and then if it was thought unadvisable the matter could be reconsidered at a later stage. If the Bill was passed as it stood amalgamations and transfers would be rendered practically impossible. Moreover, the persons whom it was desired to protect were already protected by the existence of the employers' liability fund.

LORD AVEBURY said there was such an immense number of these small policies that if the clause was insisted upon as it at present stood it would stop all amalgamations. He failed to see what practical objection there could be to accepting Lord Milner's Amendment. There was no chance whatever of any of these persons suffering loss through amalgamation. If the large policy holders agreed to the amalgamation, surely it was reasonable to suppose that the amalgamation was in the general interest and that no one would suffer. On the other hand, there was great practical advantage in accepting the Amendment.

THE EARL OF CREWE

I should like to explain to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, that the point to which he directed attention a moment ago is dealt with in Clause 32, subsection (1), paragraph (h), which provides that— Where any sum is due or a weekly payment is payable under any policy, the expression 'policy holder' includes the person to whom the sum is due or the weekly payment payable. Therefore these people are policy holders under the Bill as it stands. With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Kinnaird), the matter is not one of very great importance. It does not very much matter whether the Bill stands as it does now and the noble Viscount moves his Amendment at a future stage, or whether the Bill is altered now and His Majesty's Government move later to restore it to its original shape; but I think it is the more usual course to leave the Bill as it stands and for the Amendment to be brought up again.

VISCOUNT MILNER said he would have been very glad to allow the Amendment to stand over till the Report stage but for the statement of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, who, while promising to consider the matter again, declared that the Government had practically made up their mind not to accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY said he would have felt no hesitation whatever in voting for the noble Viscount's Amendment but for the observations made by his noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, who pointed out that there was one direction in which the Amendment probably went too far. There was, of course, no reason why the noble Viscount should not press his Amendment now and at a later stage modify it in order to meet Lord St. Aldwyn's views; but it would, perhaps, be better to put the Amendment in its proper shape before inserting it in the Bill. He suggested that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill should consider the Amendment with a rather more open mind than he seemed to indicate. The noble Lord promised most courteously to consider the matter between now and Report, but that concession was almost at once withdrawn by the information that he thought his mind was absolutely made up. If the noble Lord would go a step further and say that he would consider the Amendment with an open mind, they might, perhaps, come to an agreement to let it stand over to the Report stage. The matter was of importance, because noble Lords familiar with the subject had declared that if the Bill remained in its present shape the difficulties in the way of amalgamation would be so great as to be almost prohibitive; and there was also the fact that to some extent—namely, with regard to fire and accident policies—the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and the noble Viscount were agreed.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL was very sorry to appear obstinate in the matter, but he thought the noble Marquess had forgotten the facts of the case. The unusually long period of two months was allowed to elapse between the Second Reading and the Committee stage in order that the proposals of the Bill might be fully considered by those who were interested in them. The Government had listened to all views and made every possible, or almost every possible, concession. There were fourteen Amendments standing in his name on the Paper, all of which were in the nature of concessions. He therefore thought he could hardly be charged with not having an open mind. He did say that he would reconsider the matter, but he did not wish to mislead their Lordships into thinking that those words bore the interpretation which they were often held to bear when used in their Lordships' House.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN thought the term "concessions" was sometimes used by His Majesty's Government in a wrong sense. The Government had made mistakes, and were trying to correct them. That was not necessarily making concessions. He suggested that the concluding words of the Amendment should be altered to "other than life endowment, sinking fund, or bond investment policy holders." He submitted that those were all the persons whom it was necessary to consult.

VISCOUNT MILNER expressed willingness to amend his Amendment as suggested by Lord St. Aldwyn. It was never his intention that the Amendment should extend to endowment, sinking fund, or bond investment policies. The proviso, as amended, and as he now submitted it to the Committee, would therefore read— Provided that wherever in the case of amalgamation the amalgamating companies, or either of them, or in the case of transfer, the transferred company carries on another or other class or classes of assurance business in addition to the business of life assurance it shall not be necessary to transmit such statement to the policy holders of such companies or company other than life endowment, sinking fund, or bond investment policy holders.

On Question?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 31; Not-contents, 14.

CONTENTS.
Bath, M. Churchill, V. Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)
Lansdowne, M. Falmouth, V. Gorell, L.
Salisbury, M. Hampden, V. Hindlip, L.
Hill, V. Hylton, L.
Camperdown, E. Hood, V. Kinnaird, L.
Cawdor, E. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Langford, L.
Derby, E. Lawrence, L. [Teller.]
Mar and Kellie, E. Milner, V. [Teller] Leith of Fyvie, L.
Onslow, E. St. Aldwyn, V. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Plymouth, E. Rothschild, L.
Waldegrave, E. Avebury, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L,
Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.) Liverpool, E. Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
Wolverhampton, V. (L. President.) Herschell, L. [Teller.]
Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.) Nunburnholme, L.
Crewe, E. (L. Privy Seal.) O'Hagan, L.
Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.) Denman, L. [Teller.] Sandhurst, L.
Granard, L. (E. Granard.) Welby, L.

Amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to leave out Clause 14, which ran— 14. Where an assurance company has transferred any assurance business to or been amalgamated with another company, a policy holder in the first-mentioned company who pays to the purchasing company or the combined company the premiums accruing due in respect of his policy, or who receives any sum due under any such policy, shall not by reason of any such payment or receipt, or by reason of any other act done by him, be deemed to have abandoned any claim which he would have had against the first-mentioned company, or to have accepted in lieu thereof the liability of the purchasing or combined company unless such abandonment and acceptance have been signified in writing by him or by his agent. In Clause 29, paragraph (d), there were words which he thought would enable the Government to agree to omit Clause 14 without any detriment to the Bill. That paragraph provided that where the company intended to amalgamate with or to transfer its life assurance business to another assurance company, the Court should not sanction the amalgamation or transfer in any case in which it appeared to the Court that the life policy holders representing one-tenth or more of the total amount assured in the company dissented from the amalgamation or transfer. This showed that the life assurance company would have to go through the form of applying to the Court. If, on the other hand, Clause 14 remained as it now stood, he was advised that it would necessitate a private Act of Parliament in the case of nearly every amalgamation or transfer where life assurance was affected. If that was so, he thought it would be better to omit Clause 14 altogether and rely on the protection given in paragraph (d) of Clause 29.

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 14."—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said this was not a new clause, but reproduced verbalim Section 7 of the Life Assurance Companies Act of 1872. Its object, he understood, was this. In the event of company A being amalgamated with company B, what this clause provided was that supposing the policy holder in company A kept up his policy and made payments of his premiums to the new company, that was not to imply that he accepted the new order of things, and was not to be any bar to him in standing upon any rights which he had as against the old company. He thought this was a fair proposal, because it was obvious that the policy holder must keep up his payments. If he did not pay the premium the policy would lapse, and it would be very unfair, as might be the case without a clause of this kind, that such a payment made under those circumstances should be taken as implying his acquiescence in the new state of things and depriving him of any rights he had before. That was the justification for the clause, and he could not see any reason for omitting it.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU said that after the explanation of the noble Lord he would not press the Amendment. But it might happen that the company against which the policy holder had a claim might have been bought out and entirely eliminated.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.

Clause 18:

*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to amend this clause, which provided that— The Court, in the case of an assurance company which has been proved to be unable to pay its debts, may, if it thinks fit, reduce the amount of the contracts of the company upon such terms and subject to such conditions as the Court thinks just, in place of making a winding-up order, by leaving out the words "unable to pay its debts" and inserting the word "insolvent." There were many people who were insolvent who were able to pay their debts for the time being. A man might be insolvent long before his credit was gone. He thought it would give more protection if the word "insolvent" was substituted.

Amendment moved— In page 9, line 31, to leave out the words 'unable to pay its debts' and to insert the word 'insolvent.'"—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the words in question had been substituted for the word "insolvent," which appeared in the old Act. That had been done deliberately, and with the object of bringing this clause into harmony with Sections 129 and 130 of the Companies Consolidation Act of last year. These words occurred in the definition clause of that Act, and what would happen would be that the company would come before the Court and the Court, in terms of the Companies Consolidation Act, would find that it was unable to pay its debts. That would be the finding of the Court, and these words were inserted in the clause in order to bring this Bill into conformity with the Act of last year.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU contended that the inclusion of the word "insolvent" was very important from an actuarial point of view, and said that great stress was laid upon the Amendment by the Institute of Actuaries.

LORD AVEBURY thought that a society should be dealt with before it was absolutely devoid of cash. It might be insolvent but yet able at the moment to pay its debts.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU asked the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether he would accept the Amendment if he dropped the proposal to leave out "unable to pay its debts," and merely moved to insert the word "insolvent." That would make it doubly sure.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL was afraid he was not in a position to accept the Amendment even in that form. Instead of making it doubly sure it might make it doubly obscure.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved the insertion of a new clause after Clause 18. He explained that the Companies Consolidation Act provided that every company incorporated outside the United Kingdom should register with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies the name and address of some person resident within this country who might be sued on behalf of the company so incorporated. The reason for the proposed new clause was that there were certain assurance companies carrying on business in this country which were not incorporated at all. They were mutual companies formed in a different way, and it was to apply to them the provision with regard to a resident person who might be sued on their behalf that this Amendment had been introduced.

Amendment moved— After Clause 13, to insert the following new clause: 'Section two hundred and seventy-four of the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908 (which contains provisions as to companies incorporated outside the United Kingdom), shall apply to every assurance company constituted outside the United Kingdom which carries on assurance business within the (hilted Kingdom, whether incorporated or not.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to amend the clause by making the penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of the Act one not exceeding £100, or, in the case of a continuing default, a penalty not exceeding £50 for every day during which the default continued.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 18, after the word 'exceeding' to insert the words 'one hundred pounds, or in the case of a continuing default, to a penalty not exceeding '"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 23 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27:

VISCOUNT MILNER moved to amend this clause, which ran— 27.—(1) This Act shall not affect the National Debt Commissioners or the Postmaster-General, acting under the authorities vested in them respectively by the Government Annuities Acts, 1829 to 1888, and the Post Office Savings Bank Acts, 1861 to 1908. (2) This Act shall not apply to a member of Lloyd's or of any other association of underwriters approved by the Board of Trade, who carries on assurance business of any class, provided that he complies with the requirements set forth in the Eighth Schedule to this Act, and applicable to business of that class or, in the case of fire insurance business or accident insurance business, he either complies with those requirements or furnishes such security, and complies with such regulations applicable to those classes of business as may, for the time being, be made by the committee of Lloyd's, or the committee of management of such other association as aforesaid, and be approved by the Board of Trade. (3) Save as otherwise expressly provided by this Act nothing in this Act shall apply to assurance business of any class other than one of the classes specified in section one of this Act, and a policy shall not be deemed to be a policy of fire insurance by reason only that loss by fire is one of the various risks covered by the policy, by leaving out from "or, in the case of fire insurance business or accident insurance business" to the end of subsection (2). The main purpose of the Bill, he said, was to protect the public and to give them the maximum of security with respect to any insurances they might effect. With that object it imposed a number of obligations as regarded the deposit, as regarded the form of keeping accounts, as regarded audit, and so forth, on all great insurance companies. It would be useless to do that from the point of view of securing the public if other persons or associations of persons were not to be expected to give similar or equivalent guarantees. He thought the Government fully recognised that, for by Clause 27 and the Eighth Schedule, which carried out further the objects of this clause, it was provided that underwriters and associations of underwriters should be subjected to certain regulations, not similar in their form to those applicable to insurance companies, but similar in their object of giving a guarantee to the public of their stability and of their ability to fulfil their engagements. The obligations so imposed upon underwriters and associations of underwriters seemed to him to be in themselves reasonable. Every underwriter had to deposit £2,000—surely not a very large sum to demand as a guarantee from a man engaging in such a responsible business as insurance. They did not want men of straw to engage in this business. In addition to this, the obligation was placed upon the underwriter of periodically furnishing statements, such as the Board of Trade might prescribe, showing the extent and the character of his business. If the clause and the schedule had been allowed to stand in that form he did not think there could be any objection. It was perfectly true that even then associations of underwriters would have been treated by the Bill perhaps a little more favourably than the insurance companies, but he did not contend that the circumstances of these associations were exactly identical with those of insurance companies, or that a differentiation in certain respects could have been avoided. If the provision stood without the words which he proposed to omit, although possibly it might be somewhat more favourable to associations of underwriters than to companies, he did not think any one would have any cause of complaint. The last lines of this subsection, however, entirely destroyed the whole system of obtaining a guarantee from underwriters in respect of fire and accident insurance. Instead of coming under the operation of the Statute they would be able to draw up regulations to be approved by the Board of Trade. Why was this exceptional treatment of underwriters and associations of underwriters confined to fire insurance and accident insurance business? Why should the deposit of £2,000 be necessary in the case of a man carrying on employers' liability business or life assurance business and not be necessary in the case of a man carrying on fire or accident insurance business? There was another point. Here were two classes of institutions, insurance companies on the one hand and associations of underwriters on the other, carrying on the same business. Parliament stepped in to rightly impose upon them certain regulations to safeguard the public. In the case of one set of persons, the companies, those regulations were defined in every detail by Act of Parliament, but with regard to the other set of persons who entered into competition with the companies, the Bill began by laying down equally definite guarantees for their solvency but then went on in the words which he proposed to omit, to annihilate those guarantees with regard to certain kinds of business and to substitute for the definite statutory obligations imposed on the companies regulations to be made by the underwriters themselves with the approval of the Board of Trade. He did not wish to say anything in criticism of the Board of Trade. There was no public Department which commanded more confidence either in Parliament or outside, and he thought the Board thoroughly deserved that confidence; but there was a limit to the amount of discretionary power which it was reasonable to place in the hands of any public Department. He maintained that as between competing bodies of persons engaged in the same business, both equally entitled to carry it on with as little interference as need be on the part of the State, it was not reasonable that the securities to be given by the companies should be precisely and definitely laid down in an Act of Parliament and that the equivalent guarantees demanded of their competitors, the underwriters, should be left to be fixed by themselves with the consent of the Board of Trade. To use a vulgar phrase, what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. He did not say that there should be precisely the same guarantees in regard to companies and underwriters, but he did object to the guarantee in one case being statutory and in the other case subject to regulations which might be changed. If the words in question were deleted substantial justice would be done as between the competing parties.

Amendment move—

"In page 11, lines 21 to 27, to leave out the words 'or in the case of fire insurance business or accident insurance business he either complies with those requirements or furnishes such security and complies with such regulations applicable to those classes of business as may for the time being be made by the Committee of Lloyd's or the committee of management of such other association as aforesaid, and be approved by the Board of Trade.'"— (Viscount Milner.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the Government could not accept the Amendment. They had laid down in the Eighth Schedule a series of regulations to which any underwriter wishing to carry on this business must conform, but in the clause under discussion they provided that if an underwriter was a member of an approved association—at the present moment Lloyd's was the only one that existed, but there was no reason why there should not be others—and complied with certain requirements agreed to by the association and the Board of Trade, he should be free to carry on these two classes of insurance business. The two objects which the Department had in making that arrangement were, first, to provide the fullest possible security for the public; and, secondly, to guard against the establishment of anything in the shape of a monopoly. They wished to have free trade in insurance as in other things, and not to make rules and regulations which would render it difficult for people to embark on this business, provided, of course, there were proper guarantees of stability. The Committee of Lloyd's had agreed that there should be a provision of security equal in amount to one year's premium for every member, that all premiums should be paid into a trust fund, and that there should be an extremely searching form of audit. These conditions probably provided greater security than that given by the ordinary conditions of insurance, and they were conditions to which no insurance company would care to be subjected. These regulations, which had been framed by the Committee of Lloyd's, were not secret in any way, and in order to show that the facts were as he had stated and that the security was really ample he would be prepared, if their Lordships desired it, to lay them on the Table of the House.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he would be sorry to contend that the same requirements could be laid down in the case of companies conducting this class of business and individuals conducting it in the manner of underwriters; but he did not think the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had quite appreciated the main point raised in the noble Viscount's Amendment. For reasons which had appeared good to the Government, and which might be perfectly sound, it had been proposed that members of Lloyd's should be placed in a somewhat different position from that of persons who were not members of that society. He did not quite know why, because, whatever might be the importance of Lloyd's as an institution—and no doubt it was a very important institution—yet in these transactions carried out by members of Lloyd's the liability was solely on the person undertaking the transaction and not on Lloyd's as a body. The Government, however, proposed that members of Lloyd's, provided they complied with such regulations applicable to these classes of business as might, for the time being, be made by the Committee of Lloyd's and approved by the Board of Trade, should be allowed to contract themselves so to speak, out of the provisions of this Bill. The agreement arrived at between the Committee of Lloyd's and the Board of Trade, which, in the opinion of the Government, gave ample security, ought to be incorporated in the Bill. It was not businesslike to make an agreement of this kind which was subject to variation for members of Lloyd's, while making definite regulations which could not be altered without legislation for all other people. If the agreement were incorporated he thought the noble Viscount might be satisfied. At any rate, he would be able, if he thought the conditions insufficient, to propose certain alterations to make them sufficient, and Parliament would have the whole matter before it and be able to deal with it on the same lines, instead of making an exception in procedure which appeared to him unfair to the companies and other persons engaging in this business and singularly favourable to the members of Lloyd's.

*LORD GORELL said it was necessary to appreciate the enormous difference between insurance business done by companies and insurance as it was effected at Lloyd's. The object of the Bill was, of course, to provide for the safety, of the public in taking out policies from persons holding themselves out as ready to insure; but it must be borne in mind that there was an immense difference between the position of an underwriter at Lloyd's and a company. The expression "associations of underwriters" had been used, but that was erroneous if it conveyed the idea that there was any collective liability. Each underwriter was personally responsible for the amount he took, and was liable, not, like a company, to the extent of the limited capital, but to the extent of his whole property. It was important to note that the provision in subsection (2) which the noble Viscount desired to delete was confined to fire insurance and accident insurance business—that was to say, business which ran off in the course of a year. It was not proposed to give this privilege in respect of any class of insurance which lasted for a lengthy period. Another point to be borne in mind was that no insurance could be effected at Lloyd's except through a broker, and the fact that the broker would possess daily and habitual knowledge of the people he was dealing with would be some protection for his clients. He believed that if the Eighth Schedule were to be strictly applied to the underwriters at Lloyd's it would place great hardship upon them, and it looked to him very much as if it would crush out altogether underwriting business of this kind. The regulations which had been agreed to by the Committee of Lloyd's provided that each member of Lloyd's who carried on the business contemplated should furnish security satisfactory to the Committee of Lloyd's which should be available solely to meet claims under these policies. Then followed the three provisions to which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had referred, and he held that they provided for reasonable protection to anyone dealing with underwriters at Lloyd's.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN asked whether it would be possible for the agreement which had been arrived at to be inserted in the Bill. If that were done, their Lordships would have an opportunity of discussing the matter fully and of knowing precisely what the Government intended to impose upon members of Lloyd's. At present they were legislating in the dark.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL was disposed to agree to the excision of these words on the understanding that the Eighth Schedule should be so modified on Report as to include the substance of the agreement which had been arrived at with the Committee of Lloyd's.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28:

VISCOUNT MILNER moved to insert in the interpretation clause the words "The expression 'policy' includes any instrument evidencing a contract of insurance." This was the Amendment referred to in the debate on Clause 1, and after what had been said he did not think he need trouble the Committee with any observations in moving it.

Amendment moved— In page 11, after line 37, to insert the words the expression "policy" includes any instrument evidencing a contract of insurance.'"—(Viscount Milner.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said he was not in a position to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT MILNER moved to amend the provision— The expression 'policy holder' means the person who for the time being is the legal holder of the policy for securing the contract with the assurance company, by omitting the words "is the legal holder of the policy for securing," and inserting the words "appears on the books of the assurance company as the legal holder of the policy or other instrument evidencing." The object of the Amendment was, he explained, to protect assurance companies and to confine their obligations to those persons who appeared to be policy holders by the evidence on their own books.

Amendment moved— In page 11, lines 39 and 40, to leave out the words 'is the legal holder of the policy for securing,' and to insert the words 'appears on the books of the assurance company as the legal holder of the policy or other instrument evidencing.'"—(Viscount Milner.)

LORD AVEBURY said it was quite impossible for assurance companies to fulfil the obligation unless the person appeared on their books as the legal holder of the policy. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the original legal holder of the policy was, of course, the person to whom it was issued but it might, and often did, happen that a policy was transferred by the original holder to another person. It was frequently for instance, given as a security for a loan. The person to whom it was transferred then gave notice to the company of the assignment of the policy, and he thereupon became the legal holder. Supposing any mistake were made by the company in entering the notice of the assignment of the policy, the person who was in fact the legal holder would, if the Amendment were adopted, cease to be the legal holder, and the person who, in error, appeared in the company's books would occupy his place. He could not accept the Amendment.

LORD AVEBURY asked whether the Government would accept words requiring notice to be given to the company. Unless the company received notice, it was impossible for them to tell who was the legal holder.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL expressed his readiness to consider favourably an Amendment in these terms if brought up on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT MILNER moved the addition of words providing that the expression "underwriter" should include any person named in a policy or other contract of insurance as liable to pay or contribute towards the payment of the sum secured by such policy or contract. His noble and learned friend Lord Gorell had already described the nature of the policies of insurance issued by Lloyd's. A number of persons combined to insure a certain sum, each party writing his name for so many hundreds or scores of pounds as the case might be. Then the whole of these virtual insurers were bracketed, and against their names was written the name of some one individual through whom the policy was actually effected. The object of the Amendment was to make the point perfectly clear, because the word "underwriter" was often loosely used, and it might be contended that the only person to whom the Bill applied in the case of a policy such as he had described was the one man whose name was put forward as representing all the others and who was the actual person in whose name the policy was effected.

Amendment moved— In page 11, after line 40, to insert the words The expression "underwriter" includes any person named in a policy or other contract of insurance as liable to pay or contribute towards the payment of the sum secured by such policy or contract.'"—(Viscount Milner.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said he was advised that the Amendment was not really necessary, but if any doubt on the point existed in the mind of the noble Viscount and of those with whom he was acting he was prepared to accept it.

VISCOUNT MILNER

I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29:

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL explained that this clause provided that where a company carried on life assurance business the Bill should apply with respect to that business subject to certain modifications, which were set out in subsections. Subsection (a) ran— (a) 'Policy on human life' shall mean any instrument by which the payment of money is assured on the happening of any contingency dependent on human life, except the contingency of fatal accident or death from any specified cause or causes, or any instrument evidencing a contract which is subject to payment of premiums for a term dependent on human life. He moved to amend this paragraph by omitting the words "or death from any specified cause or causes." The object was to keep the different classes of insurance distinct. He understood that there were certain companies which issued policies nominally against accidents but in the accidents which were insured against under those policies there were no fewer than fifty-five different forms of death. It had appeared to the framers of the Bill that if the principle was extended any further great confusion would arise—he would not put it higher than that. It would be a matter of convenience if the Amendment were accepted.

Amendment moved— In page 12, lines 31 and 32, to leave out the words 'or death from any specified cause or causes.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to leave out subsection (c.)— (c) The obligation to deposit and keep deposited the sum of twenty thousand pounds shall apply notwithstanding that the company has previously made and withdrawn its deposit, or been exempted from making any deposit under any enactment hereby repealed, and to insert a new subsection, the object of which was, he said, to preserve the status quo with regard to bonâ fide companies established in this country before May 25 in the present year. The object of the Government in inserting subsection (c) was to enforce colonial and foreign companies to deposit the sum of £20,000, and in that object he entirely concurred; but it seemed to him rather ridiculous that large fire or life offices with funds of millions sterling should be compelled to comply with this regulation. The life offices considered the subsection quite unnecessary, and had asked him to move its omission and the insertion of words which, in their opinion, covered the point better.

Amendment moved— In page 13, line 1, to leave out subsection (c) and to insert the following new subsection: '(c) Such of the provisions of this Act as relate to deposits to be made under this Act shall not apply with respect to the life assurance business carried on by the company, if the company has been established within the United Kingdom, and has commenced to carry on that business within the United Kingdom before the twenty-fifth day of May nineteen hundred and nine.'"—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL explained that the words as they appeared in the Bill carried out the recommendation of the Committee of their Lordships' House over which his noble friend the Lord Steward presided. That Committee recommended that the same provisions should apply to foreign companies and to British companies, and it was in accordance with that recommendation that the clause had been drawn as it stood. He hoped their Lordships would not go against the recommendation of the Committee.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN hoped Lord Montagu would not press the Amendment. He did not see that the provision as it stood could hurt important and wealthy companies, and if there were, as there might be, some by no means important and wealthy companies established in the United Kingdom who were unable to deposit £20,000, he hardly thought they ought to continue to exist.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30:

VISCOUNT MILNER moved an Amendment to make a condition for exemption of existing companies from the deposit provisions of the Bill that a company should set aside as a reserve for unexpired risks a third of the annual premium income. Under the Bill as it stood the security sought to be given to the public was admittedly incomplete, and the question arose whether something could not be done to give the same security in the case of existing companies which the Bill would give in the case of companies to be called into existence hereafter. There were, of course, many securities provided by the Bill which did apply to existing companies, but he was speaking of the one particular kind of guarantee which consisted in the deposit of a substantial sum. He quite saw the difficulty of asking existing companies at this stage of their career to put up a particular large sum. It was retroactive legislation to which there was always strong objection, and no sum could be named which would be anything like adequate in the case of the large companies which might not act rather unfairly in the case of the smaller ones. The practice of all the best insurance companies had established the principle that at least one-third of the amount of the annual premiums for any class of annual business should be set aside at the close of the year for unexpired risks, and all that his Amendment proposed was that, seeing it was impossible to ask existing companies to give the public the security of the large deposit laid down in the case of future companies, they should at least impose upon them the obligation of conducting their business, as far as life assurance was concerned, in accordance with what he might call the minimum requirements of sound business.

Amendment moved— In page 14, lines 4 to 6, to leave out the words 'if the company has commenced to carry on that business within the United Kingdom before the passing of this Act,' and to insert the words 'so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that the company is, in each year after the passing of this Act, setting aside and maintaining out of the revenue of that business a reserve for unexpired risks of not less than one-third of the premium income received by the company in respect of that business for that year.'" —(Viscount Milner.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said that on the Second Reading of the Bill he had endeavoured to make clear to their Lordships the two great points the Government had in view with regard to security. The first was that of the deposit, which, as he had attempted to explain, was not really a security at all. It was only a sort of guarantee that at the time the company as formed it had a reasonable financial backing, but after it had attained a certain size the deposit ceased to be of very much use as a guarantee. What the Government relied on mainly after that was the publicity—allowing people to see exactly the position of the company. They had studiously avoided laying down anything in the nature of a standard, and for that reason were unwilling to accept the Amendment. There was one reason in particular which made it very undesirable to set up any particular standard. If they accepted the noble Viscount's standard of thirty-three and one-third per cent., which might or might not be an ample margin, that would at once become the Government standard. He was advised that there were companies which made an even greater provision than that; but that would become the Government standard, and everybody would be entitled to say that they were conforming to the Government standard and there was no necessity for them to do anything else. In that way he thought that more harm than good would be done by any provision of this kind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to amend subsection (b)— (b) Such of the provisions of this Act as relate to deposits to be made under this Act shall not apply with respect to the fire insurance business carried on by the company if the company has commenced to carry on that business within the United Kingdom before the passing of this Act, by omitting from the end of the subsection the words "passing of this Act," and inserting "twenty-fifth day of May nineteen hundred and nine." May 25 was the date on which the Bill was introduced, and the object of the Amendment was to prevent any company which might have been formed since that date with probably the intention of evading some of the provisions of the Bill from accomplishing that object.

Amendment moved— In page 14, line 6, to leave out the words 'passing of this Act' and to insert the words 'twenty-fifth day of May nineteen hundred and nine.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL had an Amendment on the Paper to the final subsection of Clause 30. The subsection ran— (f) The provisions of this Act with respect to the amalgamation of companies shall not apply where the only classes of assurance business carried on by either of the companies are fire insurance business, or fire insurance business and accident insurance business, and the provisions of this Act with respect to the transfer of assurance business from one company to another shall not apply to fire insurance business.

The Amendment proposed to insert after the words "or fire insurance business and accident insurance business," the words "and such of the provisions of this Act as require that on the amalgamation of one assurance company with another, or the transfer of any assurance business from one assurance company to another, certain documents shall be transmitted to policy holders shall not apply as respects fire policy holders as such." The noble Lord intimated that after the Division which had taken place he would not move this Amendment.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31:

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33:

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34:

*VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNhad two Amendments on the Paper to Clause 34. The clause ran— 34.—(1) Amongst the purposes for which collecting societies and industrial assurance companies may issue policies of assurance there shall be included insuring money to be paid for the funeral expenses of a parent. (2) No policy effected before the passing of this Act with a collecting society or industrial assurance company shall be deemed to be void by reason only that the person effecting the policy had not, at the time the policy was effected, an insurable interest in the life of the person assured, or that the name of the person interested, or for whose benefit or on whose account the policy was effected, was not inserted in the policy, or that the insurance was not one authorised by the Acts relating to friendly societies, if the policy was effected by or on account of a person who had at the time a bonâ fide expectation that he would incur expenses in connection with the death or funeral of the assured, and if the sum assured is not unreasonable for the purpose of covering those expenses. (3) In addition to the powers conferred by section seventy-one of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, a collecting society having more than one hundred thousand members shall convert itself into a company under the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908, if so ordered by the court, and such an order may be made on the petition of the committee of management or other governing body of the society unless, after hearing the committee of management, or other governing body, and other persons whom the court considers entitled to be heard on the petition, the court is satisfied that one-fourth at least of the members of the society object to the conversion; but before any such application is made to the court notice of intention to make the application shall be published in the Gazette. When a collecting society converts itself into a company in accordance with the provisions of this subsection, subsection (3) of section seventy-one of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, shall apply in like manner as if the conversion were effected under that section. (4) In this section the expressions "collecting society" and "industrial assurance company" have the same meanings as in the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896.

The noble Viscount said that this was the first of the provisions in the Bill dealing with collecting societies and industrial assurance companies, and as such it raised a question which to his mind was far more important than any other dealt with by the Bill. The law as it at present stood with regard to industrial assurance companies was that any person who desired to assure the life of another must have a pecuniary interest in the continued life of the person assured. Friendly societies doing the same business were governed by the Act of 1896, Section 5 of which provided that an assurance could only be for a sum payable on the death of a member of the society or for the funeral expenses of the husband, wife, or child of a member of the society. That was the law as it stood, but for many years past the provisions of that law had been regularly and continually broken and assurances had been effected by these industrial companies and friendly societies with a total disregard to those limitations of the law in cases where there had been no real interest of the person assuring in the person assured.

Industrial assurance business had risen to a very large amount indeed. He believed that the figure was something like £35,000,000—£26,000,000 by the companies and £9,000,000 by the friendly societies; and he was told that out of that amount something like £9,000,000 was absolutely illegal and that the assurances would be void because they were contrary to the provisions of the law. The Government had had their attention directed to this matter and had attempted to meet it by the provisions of this clause. What were those provisions? By the second subsection they proposed that no policy effected before the passing of this Bill with a collecting society or industrial assurance company should be deemed to be void by reason only that the person effecting the policy had not, at the time the policy was effected, an insurable interest in the life of the person assured, or that the name of the person interested, or for whose benefit or on whose account the policy was effected, was not inserted in the policy, or that the insurance was not one authorised by the Acts relating to friendly societies, if the policy was effected by or on account of a person who had at the time a bonâ fide expectation that he would incur expenses in connection with the death or funeral of the assured, and if the sum assured was not unreasonable for the purpose of covering those expenses.

That provision was intended to legalise the illegalities of the past, at any rate to a certain extent, and he had no doubt it would do so to a very large extent indeed. But what was proposed with regard to the future? The Government proposed a much smaller extension of the existing law. They simply proposed that amongst the purposes for which the societies and companies might issue policies of assurance there should be included money to be paid for the funeral expenses of a parent. He contended that it was entirely illogical to legalise to so large an extent the illegal assurances of the past, and then to propose to Parliament to enact a law for the future which fell very short indeed of that. Why did they propose to legalise this illegal assurance? Because the law had never been enforced. Was it possible to enforce the law? That was a question to which he would very much like to have a reply from His Majesty's Government. If it were possible to enforce the law why had it not been enforced in the past? If it were not possible to enforce the law, what was the use of narrowing the law in the future beyond the point which they desired to legalise in respect of the past?

There was another and a very serious side to this question—namely, whether it was in the interest of the working classes themselves that Parliament should extend the powers of assurance for the past in the manner proposed by the Bill or for the future even to the narrow extent which was proposed. He was confident that those who were competent, in another place, to speak the mind of the industrial classes of the country on this subject would be able to tell some very unpleasant stories with respect to the operations of these friendly societies and industrial companies in this matter. He himself had the honour to serve a great many years ago on a Royal Commission which inquired into the working of friendly societies and the societies which transacted this assurance business. The chief of them, he remembered, were the Royal Liver, of Liverpool, and the Victoria Legal. It was not too much to say that those societies were then almost completely in the hands of their agents and collectors; that the business was transacted for the benefit of the collectors, who obtained enormous commissions, rather than for the benefit of the working classes who had insured; for after a time in many cases the assurances were allowed by the collectors to lapse, and the societies lived on the lapses while the collectors lived on their commissions. He might point to some very dark suggestions that were made at that time with regard to the effect of industrial assurances of this kind on the duration of child life, but he hoped that had considerably improved. But there was a regular system with regard to these societies of collectors visiting the homes of the working class while the husbands were at work and persuading the women to insure the lives of persons not known to them, the policies in many cases being mere gambling transactions. The collectors extracted their commissions and in the end probably let the assurances lapse.

He must say that in this matter His Majesty's Government were attempting to legislate without sufficient inquiry. He would venture humbly to suggest to them that before they attempted to deal with this subject by fresh legislation, whether it related to the past or to the future, they should institute a thorough inquiry into the working of these industrial assurance societies amongst the working classes, and ascertain, for the benefit of the public and for their own benefit, in what direction it would be best to legislate. He knew that the noble Lord would contend that for the sake of these policy holders who were unable to protect themselves these existing policies ought not to be void as they were legally void at the present moment. He was not much impressed by that, because no assurance company would venture to refuse to pay, however illegal the policy might be at law. They knew that to refuse to pay would do them infinite harm in their future business. He had placed an Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of providing that whatever was enacted for the past should be enacted for the future; but he would not care to press the Amendment against the Government. His present feeling was one of doubt whether industrial assurance under the present law was working really for the benefit of the working classes, and whether, on the contrary, it was not turned into a form of gambling, which, in this very session, with regard to marine insurance where there was no insurable interest, His Majesty's Government were doing their best to put down. He questioned, therefore, whether a much more general and wider consideration of the whole subject was not necessary before any legislation was proposed. His second Amendment was to omit from subsection (2) the words "before the passing of this Act," so that the subsection would apply to future as well as to past transactions; but he would first move his Amendment in subsection (1), which, if carried, would make the subsection read— (1) Amongst the purposes for which collecting societies and industrial assurance companies may issue policies of assurance there shall he included insuring money to cover expenses to be paid or incurred in connection with the death or funeral of a parent.

Amendment moved— In papa 18, lines 40 and 41, to leave out the words 'be paid for the funeral expenses of a parent,' and to insert the words 'cover expenses to be paid or incurred in connection with the death or funeral of a parent.'"—(Viscount St. Aldwyn.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said that, as the noble Viscount had pointed out, this was a very important point, and the noble Viscount had correctly stated what it was proposed to do by the two first subsections of the clause. The second subsection was a whitewashing subsection, and its object was to legalise transactions which were really at the present moment void in law—that was to say, if they were disputed by the company or the society the claims could not be enforced under those policies. But there was something else which followed from that. He understood that it had been held that the money paid as premiums in consideration of these policies had been paid without consideration and was, therefore, recoverable, and there had been a number of actions brought for the recovery of these premiums. If the matter was allowed to stand as it was, and if they accepted the statement of the noble Viscount that no company or society would refuse to pay a claim, he thought that from the point of view of those organisations the position would be a very unfair one, because the holders of the policies would be in the glorious position that if they wished they could recover at law the premiums they had paid, and at the same time if a claim arose they would be sure to get it paid. He did not think that would be very fair, and therefore from the point of view of the companies and the societies there was a good deal to be said for this process of whitewashing. From the point of view of the people who had taken out the policies, he thought there was also a good deal to be said for it. There was a real danger, and he believed it had only been staved off by the fact of this Bill being before Parliament, that a run might take place upon these companies and societies with most disastrous results, and that many poor people would thereby lose perhaps the savings of a lifetime. He thought there were very sound reasons in favour of the course which the Government proposed. He had now dealt with the general point. With regard to the Amendment on the Paper, the noble Viscount proposed that the life of a parent should be insurable whether or not for the purpose of the payment of funeral expenses. The Government thought that the concession might well be made in the form in which they made it. It must often happen that a son would be put to expense in connection with his father's funeral, and they thought it not unreasonable that he should be allowed to insure against that expense. But the same reason did not exist if he was not to be put to that expense, and therefore they thought it right that the words should be limited as in the Bill.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said he had merely placed the Amendment on the Paper to make the legislation in future tally with the legislation proposed in respect of the past. The noble Lord had given no argument in favour of legislating in one manner for the past and in another manner for the future. He would like to hear why that was proposed.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the Government did not think it at all desirable that this class of business should go on, and they intended to do their best to put a stop to it. They had been in communication with the collecting societies and industrial assurance companies who had carried on this class of business. These bodies had had a very great fright lately owing to the action s which had been brought, and the Government understood from them that if they could get them out of the hole they were undoubtedly in, they would put their house in order and would not carry on this class of business in future. He did not think it should be very difficult to see that in future the law was enforced. They had assurances that it would be observed. He did not disagree for a moment with what the noble Viscount had said as to the evils of this promiscuous assurance. It was the same as the P.P.I. insurance which was dealt with by a Bill now before their Lordships' House. He thought the argument in favour of the course proposed by the Government was that they were anxious to avert a panic. They did not intend in the least to condone such action in the future, and the only increase which they made was in allowing the life of a parent to be insured for the purpose of paying funeral expenses.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN said it ought to be remembered in this matter that these societies and companies had deliberately broken the law in the past for their own benefit, or rather collectors had broken it for their benefit, and, to some extent, for the benefit of the societies. He was not content to know that assurances had been given in their fright by persons who had broken the law in the past that they would be good boys in the future. What steps would the Government take to enforce the law in future? What penalty was imposed upon a breach of the law? From whom would that penalty be obtained—from the collectors or the societies? What steps would be taken by the Government to enforce the law which they asked Parliament to enact?

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL imagined that the penalties contained in Clause 22 of the Bill, as amended, would be applicable in this case. It was there provided that any assurance company which made default in complying with any of the requirements of the Act should be liable to a penalty not exceeding £100, or, in the case of a continuing default, to a penalty not exceeding £50 for every day during which the default continued.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN pointed out that there had been penalties in the past for breaches of this kind, and the point was that nobody had attempted to enforce them. Would the Government enforce them in the future? That was the only way in which they would be enforced, for he did not believe the local authorities would take up the matter.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said that if the provisions with regard to the enforcement of penalties were not sufficiently strong, the Government would be cite prepared to consider whether it was desirable that they should be strengthened.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN did not move his second Amendment.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said his next Amendment was rendered necessary in this way. The old process of transforming a friendly society into a company was for a general meeting to be held and a special resolution to be passed, that special resolution forming the basis of the memorandum of association of the new company. Under the machinery which it was proposed to set up by this Bill the transformation from a friendly society to a company might take place by application to the High Court. Therefore there would be no special resolution, and without the Amendment there would be nothing on which to found the memorandum of association.

Amendment moved— In page 19, line 24, after the word 'conversion' to insert the words 'and the Court may give such directions as it thinks fit for settling a proper memorandum and articles of association of the company.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

First Schedule:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to amend Note 5, which ran— Particulars of the new life assurances effected during the year of account to be appended to the above account showing separately the number of policies, the total sums assured, the amount received by way of single premiums, and the amount of the yearly renewal premium income. The particulars as to yearly renewal premium income need not be furnished in respect of industrial business, by inserting, after "separately," the words "as respects business within and business out of the United Kingdom."

Amendment moved— In Note 5, after the word 'separately' to insert the words 'as respects business within and business out of the United Kingdom.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to further amend Note 5 by adding, after the words "and the amount of the yearly renewal premium income," the words "the items to be net amounts after deduction of the amounts paid and received in respect of re-assurances of the company's risks."

Amendment moved— In Note 5, after the first 'income,' to insert the words 'the items to be net amounts after deduction of the amounts paid and received in respect of reassurances of the company's risks.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved an addition at the end of Note 6. The note ran— The columns headed 'Business out of the United Kingdom,' in the case of companies having their head office in the United Kingdom, apply only to business secured through Agencies out of the United Kingdom. He said it was very important, for the security of policy holders in this country, that they should know what funds there were in this country in the case of foreign and colonial companies. A great many foreign and colonial companies had an insufficiency of funds here, and in one case no less than nine-tenths of the funds of the company were not available for policy holders in the United Kingdom.

Amendment moved— In Note 6, after the last 'Kingdom,' to insert the words 'in countries where the company is required to make a special deposit of funds for the security of policy holders in those countries. '"—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the insertion of the Amendment would complicate the accounts in an unnecessary manner, and the Government could not accept it.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU said the Amendment was strongly pressed by life companies. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider it between now and the Report stage.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

I am quite prepared to consider it.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Will the noble Lord hold out any hope that the Government will favourably consider it?

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL

I have already expressed a disinclination to raise false hopes, and I do not wish to depart from that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Third Schedule:

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to amend Note 1, which ran— When part of the assets of the company is specifically deposited, under local laws, in various places out of the United Kingdom, as security to holders of policies there issued, each such place and the amount compulsorily lodged therein must be specified in respect of each class of business, except that, in the case of fire insurance business, it shall be sufficient to state the fact that a part of the assets has been so deposited. The Amendment was to leave out all the words from "except" to "deposited," the object being to secure that, when in the case of small fire insurance companies their funds were hypothecated in various countries, by the laws of which they could not be taken out of those countries, there should be a statement of that fact. It would then be seen how much of their funds remained for the security of policy holders in this country.

Amendment moved— In Note 1, lines 2 and 3, to leave out the words 'except that in the case of fire insurance business it shall be sufficient to state the fact that a part of the assets has been so deposited.'"—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the reason the Government had differentiated in this Schedule between the case of life companies and companies carrying on what was known as short term business was exactly the same as he had already explained in regard to other points. They considered that in the case of these short term policies there was not the same reason for giving such an extent of protection as was necessary in other cases. A fire policy was an annual contract which might be terminated at the end of any year at the will of either party, and the same cautions were not considered necessary in that case as in the case of the long-continuing risk of life companies.

VISCOUNT MILNER supported the view of the Government, and said the Amendment was regarded with more disfavour by the great fire companies than any other proposal in connection with the Bill. The big companies most strongly objected to giving the particulars they would be called upon to give if this Amendment were accepted, because they believed it would expose them to being subjected to unfair pressure on the part of the less scrupulous of foreign Governments and would greatly hamper them in the conduct of their foreign business.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU said it was regarded as very important that these companies should state specifically what parts of their funds were hypothecated to the security of policy holders in other countries.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT MILNER moved to amend Note 1 by inserting, after the word "fire," the words "accident and employers' liability." He said this was a class of insurance similar to fire, in which insurance was for a limited period only, and should be placed in the same category.

Amendment moved— In Note 1, line 2, after 'fire' to insert the words 'accident and employers' liability.'"—(Viscount Milner.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL was willing to accept the Amendment as far as regarded accident insurance business but not as regarded employers' liability, which the Government thought should be classed with life funds.

VISCOUNT MILNER said he would take what he could get.

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to amend Note 3, which ran— The balance sheet should state how the values of the Stock Exchange securities are arrived at, and a certificate should be appended, signed by the same persons as sign the balance sheet, to the effect that in their belief the assets set forth in the balance sheet are in the aggregate, and after taking any investment reserve fund into account, fully of the value stated therein.

Amendment moved— In Note 3, line 1, to leave out the first 'should' and to insert the word 'must' and after the word 'and' to insert the words 'on any occasion when a statement respecting valuation under the Fourth Schedule is made.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL also moved to substitute "must" for "should" in the words "a certificate should be appended."

Amendment moved— In Note 3, to leave out the second 'should,' and to insert the word 'must.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Verbal Amendments agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to add at the end of Note 3 the words, "Companies established outside the United Kingdom must state the amount of assets deposited within the United Kingdom." He regarded this requirement as of great importance. As it was, the assets of these companies might be all out of the United Kingdom except the amount which had to be deposited.

Amendment moved— In Note 3, after the word 'therein,' to insert the words 'Companies established outside the United Kingdom must state the amount of assets deposited within the United Kingdom.'"—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the assets deposited in the United Kingdom might be £500,000 one day and the next day they might all be shipped abroad, consequently there would be no greater security, and the proposal put forward in the Amendment would really prove deceptive. The money would not be deposited in the sense that it would be deposited with any public authority and not liable to withdrawal. The deposit of £20,000 was required in the case of British and foreign companies. That was done on the recommendation of the Select Committee, and he did not think anything more was necessary.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU thought the provision would strengthen the hands of policy holders who might wish to go to law against the company. The amount involved in those actions might be more than the £20,000 deposited.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said the noble Lord was not suggesting that any larger sum than £20,000 should be deposited with the Paymaster-General. His (Lord Hamilton's) point was that what the noble Lord suggested would be really a deceptive safeguard in so far as it was a safeguard at all.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fourth Schedule:

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to amend Paragraph 2— 2. The general principles adopted in the valuation, and the method followed in the valuation of particular classes of assurances, and whether these principles were determined by the instrument constituting the company, or by its regulations or by-laws, or how otherwise; together with a statement of the manner in which policies on under average lives are dealt with, by inserting, after the word "assurances," the words "including a statement of the method by which the net premiums have been arrived at."

Amendment moved— In page 28, line 10, after the word 'assurances' to insert the words 'including a statement of the method by which the net premiums have been arrived at.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to amend Paragraph 3, which ran— 3. The table or tables of mortality used in the valuation. In cases where the tables employed are not published, specimens of the rate of mortality shown by the tables used should be given at every fifth age of life. The Amendment was to leave out all words from "published," and to substitute other words.

Amendment moved— In page 28, line 16, to leave out from the word 'published' to the end of line 18, and to insert the words 'specimen policy values are to be given, at the rate of interest employed in the valuation, in respect of whole-life assurance policies effected at the respective ages of twenty, thirty, forty, and fifty, and having been respectively in force for fire years, ten years, and upwards at intervals of five years respectively; with similar specimen policy values in respect of endowment assurance policies, according to age at entry, original term of policy, and duration.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to amend Note 3, which ran— In cases also where separate valuations of any portion of the business are required under local laws in places outside the United Kingdom, a detailed statement must be furnished, in the form of the above Return, in respect of the business so valued in each such place, and on the bases as to mortality and interest there adopted respectively, by omitting all words after "Kingdom" and substituting other words. He explained that this Amendment was moved on behalf of some colonial companies.

Amendment moved— In Note 3, to leave out from 'Kingdom' to the end of the note, and to insert the words 'a summary statement must be furnished in respect of the business so valued in each such place showing the total number of policies, the total sums assured and bonuses, the total office yearly premiums, and the total net liability on the bases as to mortality and interest adopted in each such place, with a statement as to such bases respectively.'"—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

*LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to add at the end of Note 3 the words, "Companies established outside the United Kingdom must furnish separate returns and valuation results in respect of policies effected in the United Kingdom." He hoped the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would accept this Amendment. It did not involve a new departure, but did give a certain amount of additional security. It was really for the purpose of getting information.

Amendment moved— In page 31, Note 3, after the word 'respectively' to insert the words 'Companies established outside the United Kingdom must furnish separate returns and valuation results in respect of policies effected in the United Kingdom.'"—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL said this information was not really necessary, and was apt to be misleading. He could not accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fifth Schedule:

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedules agreed to.

Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday the 13th of September next, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 157.)