)()¢ MAJORITY REPORT. cannot be said to be reasonably able ’’ to do so if all the circumstances of his illness are taken into consideration. 1t has accordingly been represented to us that the proviso should be amended so that members will not be penalised in cases of this type by reason of delay in furnishing notice of illness. 483. We are impressed by the considerations which have been submitted to us in this respect, and recommend that the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act should be amended in the following sense : ** Provided that, if the Society or Com- mittee administering the benefit consider, or if in the case of a dispute it is decided in manner provided by this Act, that having regard to the circumstances of his incapacity, the insured person had reasonable excuse for his failure to give notice . . . &c.” DURATION OF SICKNESS BENEFIT AND LINKING-UP ILLNESSES. 484. Tt is provided by Section 13 (5) of the Act that in cal- culating the maximum period of 26 weeks for which sickness benefit is payable, any illness which begins within twelve months of the termination of a previous illness is to be treated as a con- tinuation of that illness. Further the linking-up provisions have regard to any illness in respect of which the insured person could have claimed benefit, irrespective of whether benefit was in fact claimed. This provision, we are informed, mafy operate harshly in the case of a person who is ill for a short period in each year during a number of consecutive years (Kinnear, Q. 345-349 ; Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, Q. 6079-6081), and we under- stand that certain Societies have habitually made detailed inquiries of employers with a view to determining whether a member claiming sickness benefit has had an odd da or two of incapacity during the preceding twelve months which would justify them in applying the provision in question (Kinnear, Q. 23,491). 485. A suggestion was made to us by the Ministry of Health as to an amendment of Section 13(5) of the Act, and we quote the following from the evidence of Sir Walter Kinnear : ““ This position operates harshly in the case of a person who is ill for a short period in each year, and the hardship is one which increases as the person grows older. It does mot appear to be equitable that a week’s sickness at some previous date should make the possible difference between 26 weeks of sickness benefit and 26 weeks of disablement benefit for a subsequent incapacity, and it seems desirable to avoid any inducement to an insured person to delay claiming benefit in order to secure a title to sick- ness instead of disablement benefit . . . . . . It is suggested that Section 13(5) might be amended so as to provide that for linking-up purposes any period of 12 months during which the insured person has not received benefit in respect of more than six days of incapacitly should be regarded as a vear free frem