HL Deb 27 February 1923 vol 53 cc136-52

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord chancellor.)

LORD SHANDON

My Lords, with your permission I should like to say a few words before the Bill is taken in Committee. I apologise for taking this occasion to do so, but, unfortunately, I have not been well, and, having an affection of the eyes, I have not been able to set down the Amendments which I thought might be accepted during the Committee stage. I was absent when the Bill was read a second time. Taking, as I do, a great deal of interest in the matter, as a pure outsider in the sense of not having anything to say on the subject except what I have learned from the Report of Lord Parmoor's Committee and generally from the discussions which have taken place in this House, I think that the Government deserve thanks for introducing this Bill. It differs in many respects from the Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in regard to which I am sorry that changes have been made. At the same time, taking the Bill from the point of view of the question: Does it fulfil the requirements which are so urgent and which are pointed out in the Report of Lord Parmoor's Committee? I think the answer must be that it is not only an honest and sincere attempt to deal with the question, but one from which we may anticipate a great deal of success in its actual working, always provided that it is not materially altered from its present form.

There are two matters in connection with it that I wish to mention so that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, who is in charge of the Bill, might consider whether my criticisms are sound or not, and whether the Amendments which I hope to put down on Report are acceptable or not. They are, both in form and substance, very important. The first is this, and I propose to deal with it not in a technical but in a popular way. In Clause 22 there is a wise provision that there shall be no forfeiture of a policy without the service of notice upon the person assured, and that that person should have time—a period of twelve months, I think it is—in which to apply for a paid-up policy on which he would not have to pay any future premiums. This deals, as far as it goes, with one of the most important, if not the most important, of the points discussed in the Report—namely, the immense amount of money which is lost to the poor by reason of the forfeiture of policies. It is said, and I am not prepared to controvert it, that the companies are not at all desirous—certainly the large companies are not—that this system of forfeiture should continue and that they really have more to gain by the continuance of the policy than by its forfeiture. Be that as it may, it is a difficult question to deal with. It causes immense loss and, in many cases, suffering to a very poor class of people whom we have to protect in this Bill. So far so good.

But the question with which we have to deal practically is this: How are we to bring home to those people the knowledge, first, that their policy may be forfeited, and, secondly, that they can get a paid-up policy in lieu of it. It is, of course, a very difficult question, because these people frequently change their residences, and a change of residence puts them out of touch with the collectors, and certainly with the com- pang as a corporate body. How, then, is this knowledge to be brought home to them? We cannot, of course, find the perfect system, but the Bill deals with the matter to a certain extent. There is, however, a slip in connection with it which is vital. The service of notice is one thing. The manner of serving the notice is another thing. Clause 40 of the Bill, without referring to any details, provides that good notice shall be made by sending by post to the last known address of the person assured a notice of forfeiture. Standing alone that simply means that there might as well be no provision as to notice at all. When these poor people change their residences, they do not inform the Post Office. Therefore, when the notice is served, there is an end of the wretched policies in these cases.

In order to deal with that, it is provided, by a clause to which I cannot at the moment refer your Lordships, that on the face of every policy there shall be set forth the provisions of the several sections set out in the Third Schedule of the Bill. I am inclined to think that you might as well have a chapter from the Book of Genesis printed on the back of the policy so far as those people are concerned. Conscious of that, the draftsman has provided a second part to the Schedule and the policy is also to bear on the face of it—which is quite right—particulars of the sections which are contained in the second part of the Schedule. But the second part of the Schedule leaves out Clause 40, which is Hamlet. Accordingly, the Amendment, which I would put down at a later date, if the Government would accept it, would be one by which not only the forfeiture section, Clause 22, but also Clause 40 as to the mode of forfeiture, should appear across the face of the policy not in a technical form but rather in a popular form. This is the manner in which I should think it might be dealt with. In large type and also in coloured ink, there should be clearly and legibly printed a notification of the necessity of the assured keeping the society always apprised of his or her correct address, and of any change of address, and of the liability to forfeiture if the changed address is not shown on the policy.

It appears to be a small matter, but it is really not so. These poor people could no more understand references in technical language to forfeiture alone and to notice than they could understand the Einstein theory. They are half-educated. They are poor. They are not really acute in construing documents. What they want is something of this sort set out in large letters that they can read: "if you do not keep your address posted up with the company and the company's collectors you may lose all your money." I do not think that the insurance companies, against whom I have never said anything except that I thought that modification was required with regard to their processes—I do not think that the big companies and honest companies (and there are plenty of them) will object to that. It rather helps them than otherwise. That is one question which I think is most important, though it may appear to be a matter of words.

The other point is one of even greater importance in another way, and I do not know what attitude the Government will take regarding it. It is in regard to the method of valuing premiums which have been paid on a policy if a new policy is to be issued closing the transaction. The Fourth Schedule of the Bill contains an actuarial method of calculation. I confess that I could not say that I understand it. I think that very few of your Lordships who have not a special knowledge of the subject would understand it. It is very complex. For practical purposes, what seems to me to be required is to follow the very simple method which has been adopted by some insurance companies. These are all very small sums—£10, or £20, or £30 at the outside. A man pays so many subscriptions. They come to £10, or £20, or £30. You should give him a new policy for what he has paid. There is nothing unfair or unjust in that. That system has been adopted by some of the mutual companies. The companies do not lose by it, for they have had the use of the money all the time. I believe that many of the societies which deal with the insurances of railway servants and workers of that kind have also adopted that system. It is a fair system, it is an intelligible system, and it would seem to be, for practical purposes, the best system to adopt.

I commend those two points to the notice of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and I am sure your Lordships will accept my apology for having introduced the matter at this stage. I wish to repeat that I hope that in substance this Bill will not only pass, but that it will pass with great rapidity.

LORD SYDENHAM

My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Lord has just said. I regard this as a well considered Bill, and I believe that it will have an immense effect in doing away with some of the evils that Lord Parmoor's Committee revealed. What we have to do is to protect a large number of very ignorant people who are not able to understand legal terms and master the intricacies of a policy. The noble and learned Lord has suggested that we should give the policy holder a clear and distinct warning, printed in such a way as to catch the eye, that it is encumbent on all to give notice of every change of address, otherwise their policies may be forfeited: I hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will very kindly consider that suggestion when it is put forward upon Report in the form of an Amendment, and that he will favourably consider such Amendment, the terms of which we might settle with him beforehand.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving me notice of what he intends to propose on the next stage of the Bill. He makes two suggestions. One is that Section 40, which is included in Part I of the Third Schedule, on page 35, should be transferred to Part II. That means that the section would be printed, not in ordinary type, but in big type, so as to catch the eyes of the policy holders. At present I see no objection to that, although I should hesitate before pledging myself as to any particular colours of type to be used in the different policies from time to time. The second point is that the noble Lord wants a new method prescribed for valuing a policy in the Fourth Schedule. That, of course, I will consider. I do not at present fully understand what his proposals are.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Deposits by collecting societies.

7.—(1) Every collecting society shall be under the like obligation to deposit and keep deposited the sum of twenty thousand pounds as an industrial assurance company, and Section 2 of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, as applied by this Act to industrial assurance companies, shall apply accordingly, subject in its application to collecting societies to the following modifications— (c) In the case of a society registered and carrying on industrial assurance business at the passing of this Act the deposit shall be made before the commencement of this Act:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to insert: "but if in any particular case the Commissioner considers that further time should be allowed to the society for making the deposit, he may, if satisfied as to the financial position of the society at the time of the passing of this Act, postpone the time for making the deposit to some time within five years after the commencement of this Act."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This clause requires every collecting society under the Bill to make a deposit of £20,000 as security for their policy holders. It has been represented to me that some societies may not have that amount in hand at the moment, or be able to spare it so as to deposit it at once, before the Act conies into operation. I think there is a good deal in that contention, and it is proposed by this Amendment that the Commissioner, if he is satisfied that they are solvent and not insolvent societies, should be allowed to give them further time up to five years from the commencement of the Act.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 4, after ("Act") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD PARMOOR

I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that some time might properly be given in the case of those collecting societies who have not the money for immediate deposit, but I think five years is too long a period. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount would allow me to move that the period be three years. It is of great importance that the funds and position of these collecting societies should be made secure as soon as possible. The noble and learned Viscount will, of course, appreciate that, because that is the meaning of putting upon them the obligation to deposit the large sum of £20,000, as is done in the case of insurance companies. I will ask the noble and learned Viscount whether if I were to move three years instead of five, he would not regard that term as sufficient?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I rather hope that the noble and learned Lord will not raise a question about three years or five years. Five years is a maximum, and the Commissioner would be entitled to say three years, or two years, or any period as being sufficient to enable the society to find the money. I think five years is not an unreasonable period as a maximum.

LORD PARMOOR

As it is a maximum I appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount has just said.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Provisions to be contained in rules.

(2) Save as otherwise provided by the rules of a collecting society, being rules registered before the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and twenty-one—

  1. (a) the rules of a collecting society shall contain the tables in accordance with which policies of industrial assurance are issued by the society; and
  2. (b) no policy shall be issued by a collecting society otherwise than in accordance with the tables for the time being in force as set forth in the rules of the society.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2) (b), after "accordance," to insert "with the rules of the society and." The noble and learned Viscount said: This clause requires in subsection 2 (b) that no policy be issued by a society otherwise than in accordance with the tables for the time being in force. It has been pointed out that some societies may desire to accept exceptional lives on terms different from those in their tables, but that they must, if this provision remains, adhere to their tables. It is proposed that they should be entitled to issue policies either in accordance with their rules or with their tables.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 17, after ("accordance") insert ("with the rules of the society and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 7, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("the rules of the society") awl insert ("those rules").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11:

Application of Act of 1909 to industrial assurance companies.

(3) In its application to industrial assurance business the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, shall have effect subject to the following modifications— (e) On a petition under Section thirteen of the said Act (which relates to the amalgamation of companies and the transfer of business from one company to another) the Commissioner shall be entitled to be heard, and on any such hearing the Commissioner may apply to the court to exercise its powers under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of that section of directing that the requirements of that paragraph shall be dispensed with or modified:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after paragraph (e) of subsection (3), to insert as a new paragraph:— (f) On any such petition, any class of persons (including employees of any company concerned) who allege that they are adversely affected by the amalgamation or transfer, shall be entitled to appear and to be heard; The noble and learned Viscount said: This clause refers to the amalgamation of industrial assurance companies, and the Amendment proposes that, on a petition for amalgamation, any class of persons adversely affected by the amalgamation shall be entitled to appear and be heard by the Commissioner. I trust that your Lordships will agree to that.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 25, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 12, 13 and 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Annual accounts and returns.

15.—(1) The Commissioner, after considering any representations made by or on behalf of the society or company affected, may reject any account, return, or balance sheet sent by a collecting society or an industrial assurance company in pursuance of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, or the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, and give such directions as he thinks necessary for the variation thereof.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "reject," and insert "if it appears to him that." The noble and learned Viscount said: This clause enables the Commissioner in general terms to reject an account or balance-sheet returned by a collecting society or industrial society. It appears that it would be better to state broadly the grounds on which he may reject an account, and, therefore, this Amendment and the succeeding Amendment propose that he shall have power to reject if the account is incomplete or does not conform to the requirements of the Act. That makes the clause clearer and more specific.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 37, leave out ("reject") and insert ("if it appears to him that").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My next Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 40, after ("1909") insert ("is in any particular incomplete or incorrect, or does not comply with the requirements of the Act applicable to the case, reject the account, return, or balance sheet").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 16 to 22 agreed to.

Clause 23:

Provisions as to forfeited policies.

(3) In every premium receipt book issued after the commencement of this section there shall he printed a notice stating that in the event of the forfeiture of any policy of industrial assurance by reason of default in the payment of premiums thereunder, the owner of the policy shall, if the policy has been in force a sufficient period as provided by this section, be entitled to a free paid-up policy or, if the conditions mentioned in paragraph (ii) of subsection (i) of this section are fulfilled, to the surrender value of his policy, and that upon application to the head office of the society or company information as to the amount of such free paid-up policy or surrender value will be supplied, and it shall be the duty of the society or company to supply such information.

(4) Where the rules of a society or the conditions of a policy are such as would confer on the owner of the policy in case of forfeiture rights more favourable to the owner of the policy than those conferred by this section, nothing in this section shall prevent the owner of the policy from claiming under those rules or conditions instead of under this section.

(5) This section shall come into operation at the expiration of five years after the passing of this Act.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I have on the Paper three Amendments to this clause; and they all go together. The first is in subsection (3) to leave out the first "section" and insert "Act"; the second, in subsection (3), after "forfeiture," to insert "after the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act"; and the third, in subsection (5), to leave out "come into operation" and insert "shall not apply in the ease of a forfeiture occurring before."

The Bill provides that in the event of forfeiture by lapse the policy holder shall be entitled to a free paid-up policy of a certain amount, and subsection (3) of this clause provides that in every premium receipt book issued after the commencement of this Act there shall be printed a notice calling attention to this provision. It has been pointed out to me that these premium receipt books might be issued to-day or to-morrow without this notice, and might be held by a policy holder for more than five years, that is, beyond the time when the clause is to have effect, and it is better that the clause shall take effect, so far as notice is concerned, at once. Therefore in any premium, receipt book issued after the passing of the Act the policy holder shall be told that if his policy lapses he is entitled to the benefits,of the Act.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 2, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD PARMOOR

I think it would be convenient if on the Amendment moved by the Lord Chancellor I now state what I really mean by my Amendment to subsection (5) of this clause to leave out the words "expiration of five years." In this clause we are dealing with the question of lapses. It is agreed that one of the crying abuses of the present day as regards industrial assurance consists in the large number of cases in which people have paid their premiums and then, through the lapse of the policy, have forfeited all possible benefit. That is a hardship which the Bill seeks to put right. Let me explain exactly what the difference is between our two proposals. In this clause there is no forfeiture except where the policy has been in force either for not less than five years or for not less than three years. Therefore, what we are dealing with is not a policy which has been taken out for a short, time and then a lapse occurs, but a case in which the policy has been taken out for five or three years, and thereafter a lapse has occurred.

On this point may I refer to the Report of the Committee over which I had the honour to preside. They state: The great mass of lapses occur among policies of very short duration. And they go on to say: The evidence shows that a very large proportion of all the policies taken out lapse within the first three or four years of their duration; the bulk of them within the first few months. Therefore the remedy provided in this clause will not, unfortunately, affect a great number of these lapses at all. That, however, cannot be helped, and I need not go into the reasons. The effect of the Bill, as it stands, is that no poor person can have the benefit of the lapse proposals until the expiration of five years after the passing of the Bill, and that is the reason why the Lord Chancellor seeks to put the provision in his Amendment into the terms of the notice. I agree that it ought to be in the terms of the notice if the provision itself is maintained.

This is an important matter and, judging from communications which have been made to me, it is one on which a large number of policy holders feel very strongly. It postpones for five years any remedy for one of the most crying evils to which the Committee called attention. The Report of the Committee recognised that some period ought to be allowed on actuarial grounds in order that the companies or societies might make provision for dealing with lapsed policies, and as a matter of fact the proposals which the Committee put forward were for a delay of five years. Since the issue of the Report of that Committee three years ago there are reasons why that view might be reconsidered. There has been already a delay of three years, and at the present time, owing to the conditions of unemployment, the difficulty of poor people in maintaining these premiums is exceptionally hard.

On the other hand I want to put the difficulty against my proposal; and that is the actuarial difficulty. What I want to ask the Lord Chancellor to do is this. We were assisted by a very eminent actuary of wonderful skill and knowledge in matters of this kind—Sir Alfred Watson. I think he is the Government Actuary still. We could not have brought out our Report without his assistance, and if he has not been consulted of late I hope the Lord Chancellor will ask him whether this period of five years might not be diminished.

A large number of companies and societies engaged in the work of prudential assurance are not poor bodies. They have made large sums. I do not want to say one word against the Prudential Company because they have voluntarily—that is, when we were inquiring into the matter—accepted certain obligations in the case of lapsed policies although on the terms of the contract the policy holder whose interest had lapsed had no right against them. I think there is little doubt that an alteration which would give real and substantial and immediate advantage to policy holders would not to any great extent affect the financial position of the societies and companies. As the Committee Report says, a great number of these lapses take place within three or four years after the policy has been taken out; in most cases after a few months. None of these cases are dealt with under this clause. It deals only with cases in which the premiums have been paid for three or five years. The importance of this point will, I know, be realised by the Lord Chancellor.

If, on actuarial grounds, he tells me that it cannot be done, I shall have to acquiesce, but I hope if my Amendment cannot be received in full that at any rate the period of five years may be diminished, especially in view of the fact that it is now three years since the Committee made their Report. I have made these remarks on the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor, but the same points would have arisen if I had moved my own Amendment, and I therefore thought this an appropriate time to bring this question before your Lordships.

LORD SYDENHAM

I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment of my noble and learned friend. I think that five years is rather too long a time to postpone the advantages which this clause is going to give to these poor people. As the noble and learned Lord said, the profits of these companies are in some cases very large indeed. Only the other day the Pearl Insurance Company declared a dividend of 50 per cent. free of Income Tax, which shows that that company at least must be in very good circumstances. As the noble and learned Lord said, times are hard, and some of these poor people who are out of work are finding it very difficult to keep up, the payment of their premiums regularly. I feel that if the noble and learned Viscount could reduce the time to two, or even three, years it would be a great help, and would go far to do away with what the noble Lord has called a most crying injustice, which has been felt for many years. I trust, therefore, that the Lord Chancellor will be willing to consider reducing the period to two or three years.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

A great deal of interest has been taken in this question outside, notably by co-operators and persons in that position who feel themselves considerably affected. They are much agitated about this clause, and I have very little doubt that they are unduly agitated, because I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that you must make some provision for the very early stages of the policy. It may be, on the other hand, that five years is too long. I do not think this is a matter of which it is easy to judge, standing here in the House, with- out the advice of those who have largo experience. I have no doubt that the Lord Chancellor has had that advice, but he may be erring on the side of too much caution, and I would suggest to him that it may be worth while postponing the final decision of this question to the Report stage, and making some inquiry between now and then as to whether a too cautious view has not been taken in extending the period to five years.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should, of course, be willing to adopt that suggestion. I feel a little grievance here, because in drafting and approving the Bill I had relied very strongly upon a valuable document known as the Parmoor Report. In the course of that Report I find the following passage— The new provisions as to surrender values will eventually compel the accumulation of proper reserves in all cases, but this cannot be achieved at once, and the Committee therefore recommend that these proposals should not become operative until the end of five years from their enactment. That is exactly what the Bill proposes, and I am a little surprised to find my noble and learned friend rising to repudiate that part of his Report. His Amendment goes very far. It proposes that, instead of five years after the commencement of the Act, the clause shall take effect immediately upon the passing of the Act, without even waiting for the commencement of the Act on January 1 next. That, I think, would be quite impossible, but, in view of what has been said, I will very willingly confer again with Sir Alfred Watson who, if I may say so, has been advising me throughout upon this Bill, and whose advice I have found exceedingly valuable. Perhaps my noble and learned friend will not move his Amendment to-day, and I will consider it.

LORD PARMOOR

After what the noble Viscount has said, I certainly will not move my Amendment to subsection (5). He is, of course, quite correct in his reference to the terms of the Report. I should be perfectly content to take the view of Sir Arthur Watson, and I hope that the noble Viscount will have an opportunity of consulting with him. Meanwhile, the matter can stand over until the next stage.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I understand that the Lord Chancellor persists in his Amendment.

LORD PARMOOR

I leave that, of course, in the Lord Chancellor's hands.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 3, after ("forfeiture") insert ("after the expiration of five years from the passing of this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD PARMOOR

I understand that if, on further consideration with the actuaries, it were found that some less time could be allowed, that would also be inserted here?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Certainly.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 22, leave out ("come into operation") and insert ("not apply in the case of a forfeiture occurring before").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24:

Substitution of policies.

24.—(1) Where the owner of an industrial assurance policy agrees to accept a now policy in substitution therefor, the collecting society or industrial assurance company, shall pay to the owner of the policy the surrender value (to be ascertained in manner hereinafter provided) of the old policy or shall issue to him a free paid-up policy of equivalent value, unless the value of the substituted policy, calculated in accordance with the rules set out in the Fourth Schedule to this Act, at the date of the substitution is equal to or exceeds such surrender value.

(2) In any such case the society or company shall furnish to the owner of the policy, with the new policy and new premium receipt book, a statement setting forth the rights of the owner under this section, and containing an account certified by the secretary of the society or company showing the surrender value of the old policy and the value of the new policy.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), after "company," where that word secondly occurs, to insert "or other officer appointed for the purpose." The noble Viscount said: This is practically a formal Amendment. The secretary may not be the best officer to sign the statement.

Amendment moved— Page 20, line 3P, after ("company") insert ("or other officer appointed for the purpose").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.

Clause 27:

Policies to which 4 & 5.Geo. 5. c. 78 applies.

27.—(1) The Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1914, shall cease to be in force so far as it relates to the enforcement of lapses of policies of insurance.

(2) The owner of any policy to which the said Act applied shall be entitled at his option either—

  1. (a) on payment at any time before the expiration of six months after the publication of such notice as is hereinafter mentioned of all arrears in premiums then due, to secure the maintenance of the policy; or
  2. (b) on making application in writing for the purpose at any time before the expiration of six months after the publication of such notice as aforesaid, to have a new policy issued to him of such reduced amount, or, in the case of an endowment assurance policy modified in such manner, as having regard to the amount of the arrears may be determined under regulations made by the Commissioner to be proper to give effect to the loss occasioned by the non-payment of the arrears.

(3) Every collecting society and industrial assurance company shall within three months after the passing of this Act publish by advertisement and otherwise as the Commissioner may approve, notice of the rights under this section of the owners of policies to which the said Act applied.

(4) Where the person whose life is assured under any such policy has died before the passing of this Act or within nine months thereafter and the option hereinbefore conferred has not been exercised before his death, the society or company shall be liable to pay to the person entitled to receive the sum assured under the policy the amount thereof after deducting the amount of the arrears of premiums due at the date of death.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (4), after "company," to insert "on application being made for the purpose within two years after the passing of this Act." The noble Viscount said: It is desirable that there should be some time limit to these obligations, and I think that two years, as proposed by the Amendment, is a reasonable period.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 40, after ("company") insert ("on application being made for the purpose within two years after the passing of this Act").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to

Clause 28 to 34 agreed to.

Clause 35:

Transfer of engagements of collecting societies.

35.—(1) Section 70 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, in its application to an amalgamation and transfer of engagements of collecting societies shall have effect subject to the following modifications:— (ii) An amalgamation or transfer shall not become effective unless sanctioned by the Commissioner, and the Commissioner shall hear any representations made on behalf of any class of persons (including the employees of any society concerned) who allege that they are adversely affected by the amalgamation or transfer, and may require as a condition of his sanction that the terms of the amalgamation or transfer shall be modified in such manner as he may consider just.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) (ii), after "Commissioner," to insert "before sanctioning any such amalgamation or transfer." The noble Viscount said: I think these words are really implied, but some people are not quite happy about it, and I see no harm in putting them in.

Amendment moved— Page 27, line 3, after ("Commissioner") insert ("before sanctioning any such amalgamation or transfer").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses, agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.