MAJORITY REPORT.

209

tide over a period of transition. We think that the sum provided
 for this purpose should not exceed £50 and that the balance
should be paid over at yearly or half-yearly intervals by the
Society to the Central Fund. We do not think that there is any
argument for allowing this balance to accrue to the Ber efit Fund
of the Society as has been suggested by certain witnesses.
492. Suggestions have been made by witnesses appearing
before us on behalf of Poor Liaw Authorities that the Act should
be so amended as to empower Approved Societies to pay
to Boards of Guardians the Sickness Benefit of members who
are inmates of Poor Liaw institutions and have no dependants.
(Association of Parish Councils of Scotland, App. LXXX,
Q. 20,535-20,636 ; Association of Poor Law Unions of England
and Wales, App. XC, 29-42; Q. 21,703-21,714.) It is urged
that in a considerable number of cases of this kind the insured
Person obtains his discharge from the institution after a considerable
 sum has accrued to his credit as benefit, that the
accrued benefit is paid to him in a lump sum by his Society and
that, having quickly dissipated the benefit, he finds his way
back to the institution. We are informed that the specific provision
 which debars the payment to the Poor Law Authorities
of any part of the benefit arising from the insurance of an inmate
of a workhouse, Poor Law infirmary, asylum or other similar
Institution maintained out of public funds, was included in the
1918 Act following a recommendation of the Departmental Committee
 on Approved Society Finance and Administration.
493. We see no reason for departing from the principle that
benefits derived from the compulsory contributions of employers
en employed should not be applied towards the relief of local
rates.

494. Tt has been suggested, however, that the cases to which
We have referred would, to a large extent, be met if the dis-Cretionary
 power now entrusted to Societies enabling them to
make payments of accrued benefit either in a lump sum or in
Wnstalments after the insured person’s discharge from an institution
 were replaced by a compulsory provision that in the case
of persons without dependants, any benefit accrued in respect
of their insurance’ during a period when they have been inmates
of the institution should in all cases be paid to them on their
discharge in weekly instalments. (Kinnear, Q. 23,749.)
495. We agree that such a provision would undoubtedly go a
long way towards meeting the particular criticism of the Poor
Law Authorities to which reference is made above. We accordgly
 recommend that Section 17 (3) of the Act should be
amended so as to provide that where an insured person without
dependants has been an inmate of an institution, any balance of
the accrued benefit payable to him on his discharge shall in all