THE VICTIMS OF INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE [To the Editor of THE
SPECTATOR.] SIR,—If Sir Thomas Neill, in his attempt to rebut the damning facts cited by Mr. W. E. Mashford under this heading, had devoted less of the three-quarters of a column allowed him to lamenting lack of space, and more to explaining away (1) the receipt by the companies of £772,000,000 in income, as against the payment to policy-holders of £271,000,000 ; and (2) the "lapsing" of no fewer than 100,000,000 policies in the space of about 14 years, he might have given greater satisfaction to your readers. His allowing these figures to pass undisputed amounts to a consent to judgement.
His plea that " industrial assurance is administered under the close and continuous control of the Industrial Assurance Commissioner " means no more than that a watchful official exists to take action in the case of any actual breach of the law by one of the companies which comes to his knowledge.
But the whole crux of the matter is that the companies take care to be just on the right side of the law. Their policy- holders are mainly people of no business experience, incapable of taking in the legal effect of printed papers, especially when put before them for signature by astute and pertinacious agents.
Let me give a recent instance within my personal know- ledge. A young parlourmaid had taken out a policy under which she was to receive £50 at the end of 15 years. After paying weekly premiums thereon for a considerable number of years, she found herself in need of £4 10s. to meet a special expense. Obviously any fair-dealing company would have lent her this small amount 011, security of the policy. Not so her company. It induced her to surrender the policy for approximately the amount she needed, although it was only a small fraction of the premiums paid, and in a few more years she would have been entitled to the £50. There was no question of inability to keep up the premiums ; she was an admirable servant and never out of a place. When the facts came to my notice later, I wrote to the company pointing out the hardship involved by its action. It ap- parently considered it a sufficient defence that the word
" surrender " appeared in block capitals on a paper put before the girl for signature ; but it was significant that to
my question whether any business man would have looked at the transaction for a moment there was no reply. She
has since been pestered by the company's agents to take out a new policy, but now refers them to me.
I may add that the Industrial Assurance Commission, before whom I laid the facts, while fully recognizing the hard-
ship of the case, regretted that he was unable to intervene, as there had been no breach of the law. So much for the close
control alleged by Sir Thomas.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
