§ The CHAIRMANAs regards the new Clauses, the subject-matter of the first one has already been dealt with. The second one imposes a charge, and is, therefore, not in order. The third Clause comes under the same ruling; while the fourth is outside the scope of the Bill. The same remark applies to the Clause standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Raffan).
§ Mr. HOHLERWith regard to the second Clause standing in my name, which you have declared to be outside the scope of the Bill, may I point out that it does 413 not impose any additional charge. The only effect of the Clause is to get rid of the seven years' limitation in regard to death. That is to say, if anybody does from his wounds after the period of seven years, his widow is still to be entitled to a pension. I submit that that is not imposing a fresh charge. The remainder of the Clause only enables pensions to be given to persons who are disabled by disease medically certified as contracted or commencing or seriously aggravated whilst actually serving. I submit that that, too, is not a new charge, but that it comes within the title and purport of the Bill.
§ The CHAIRMANI am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have scanned these Clauses very carefully, and have obtained information as to their effect.
§ Mr. HOGGEWith regard to the case of a man who contracts disease while actually serving, may I point out that the Pensions Committee makes provision there, and that the money is provided for such cases.
§ The CHAIRMANThat takes it outside the scope of the Bill.
§ Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Thursday), and to be printed. [Bill 116.]