§ (1) For the purposes hereinafter mentioned relating to pensions and grants and allowances made in respect of the present war to officers and men in the naval and military services of His Majesty and their wives, widows, children and other dependants, and the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present War there shall be constituted a Statutory Committee of the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), consisting of twenty-nine members, appointed as hereinafter mentioned.
§ (2) Of the said twenty-nine members—
- twelve (of whom one shall be chair man and one vice-chairman and some shall be women and not less
859 than two shall be representative of labour) shall be appointed by His Majesty;
- one shall be appointed by the Treasury;
- one shall be appointed by the Admiralty;
- one shall be appointed by the Army Council;
- one shall be appointed by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee;
- one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board;
- one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Scotland;
- one shall be appointed by the Local Government Board for Ireland;
- six (of whom some shall be women) shall be appointed by the General Council of the Corporation;
- two shall be appointed by the Governing Body of the National Relief Fund;
- two shall be appointed by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association.
§ (3) Four of the members appointed by the General Council of the Corporation shall be appointed from amongst the members of the Corporation, but save as aforesaid it shall not be necessary that the persons appointed to be members of the Statutory Committee should at the time of appointment be members of the Corporation.
§ (4) There may be paid to the chairman and vice-chairman, or either of them, out of moneys provided by Parliament, such salary as the Treasury may determine.
§ (5) All other expenses of the Committee (including such travelling and other allowances to members of the Committee as the Committee may determine) shall be paid out of the funds at the disposal of the Committee.
§ (6) Seven members of the Statutory-Committee shall constitute a quorum, and the Statutory Committee may appoint subcommittees consisting either wholly or partly of members of the Statutory Committee, and may delegate to such subcommittees, with or without any restrictions or conditions as they think fit, any of their powers and duties under this Act. Subject to this provision, the Committee shall regulate their own procedure.
§ (7) The term of office of a member of the Statutory Committee shall be three years; but a retiring member shall be eligible for re-appointment: Provided that if a member required to be appointed from amongst 860 the members of the Corporation ceases for two months to be a member of the Corporation otherwise than as a member of the Statutory Committee he shall at the end of that period vacate his office as member of the Statutory Committee, and that a person appointed to fill a casual vacancy shall continue in office so long only as the person in whose place he was appointed would have continued in office.
§ (8) The Statutory Committee may employ a secretary, assistant secretaries, and such other clerks and servants as they may require, and may establish a scheme of pensions for persons in their permanent employment.
§ Mr. GOLDSTONE
I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "and the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present War."
With the permission of the House I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield (Mr. Anderson) to explain the meaning of the Amendment, to which his name is attached.
§ Mr. ANDERSON
I beg to second the Amendment. We feel that the best work that this statutory Committee can do is to confine itself entirely to the question of the supplementary pensions. The work of getting disabled soldiers back into industry, as well as of securing the return of the ordinary soldiers to their industrial occupations, is so big a job, involving so many difficulties, that I believe it to be entirely beyond the scope of the Committee which this Bill proposes to set up. We therefore desire there should be some entirely different committee for the purpose of tackling the whole industrial side of this matter, including the training of disabled soldiers and bringing them back into industry again. That will raise many difficult questions. It will involve the question of wage standards and many other industrial matters. I believe that this is not the proper Committee for such a purpose; it is not properly constituted to undertake so difficult and delicate a job, and that is why we want to limit the scope of this Committee to the work of allocating these supplementary pensions. There may be not only disabled soldiers to be dealt with, but possibly there will be 2,000,000 ordinary soldiers who will have to be got back into the ranks of industry. That will be a very big job, and I therefore strongly urge that the words I have quoted should be left out and that, 861 later on, we should set up another authority to deal with the question of the industrial training of disabled soldiers and bringing them back in the ordinary ranks of industry.
§ Mr. HOGGE
This point was discussed at great length on the Committee stage, when a large number of us thought that, unless public money were provided in addition to the voluntary funds that are to be at the disposal of the statutory Committee, this body could not undertake the work. But it has been made quite plain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of the Government—and I notice that the Prime Minister himself happens to be present at this precise moment, and therefore has full cognisance of what the Government has done—we have an excellent pledge from the Cabinet—that public money is to be forthcoming if the voluntary funds are not sufficient for the purpose. It seems to me that at this period of the Bill it would be a great mistake to take out from the scope of this new body this particular task. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fulham (Mr. Hayes Fisher), who is in charge of the Bill, has admitted quite plainly—and his feeling is shared by a great number of us interested in this matter—that this present Bill is by no means a perfect Bill, and is not even the Bill that he himself would have liked to have seen. But here we have a beginning being made with a most important task. Every one of these disabled officers and soldiers will have provided for him, under the scale of the Select Committee's Report, a pension which must be 25s. as a minimum, and what can be done in addition is extra—that is, the training for employment or further care and help. This Committee will have the supervision of these men so far as the pensions they are getting is concerned, and it would be a great misfortune if they were left outside the scope of this Bill. Obviously the best thing to do in the circumstances—as this Bill is urgent—is to get this machinery set going and, in future Sessions, we can amend this Bill, which the right hon. Gentleman himself has already assured us ought to be amended, so as to enable it to deal better with these questions as occasion arises. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will resist this Amendment, and that there will be no delay in setting up this machinery, which is most urgently wanted. The sooner we can get it started the better.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher)
I think it is a very great pity that the hon. Gentleman who framed this Amendment, important as it is, should not have raised the point on the Committee stage of the Bill, but should have brought it forward at the last moment in manuscript form.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
That was not in my recollection. These words deal with one of the most important functions of this statutory body. It is to be a body of very great importance, and it is being constituted with very great care. It will have considerable sums of money at its disposal—it may be State funds, although there are those who hope that those funds will never be State funds. The most important function which this body will have to discharge will be to deal with the care of officers and men disabled in consequence of the present War. It is specially provided in Sub-section (i) of Clause 3 that it is—to make provision for the care of disabled officers and men after they have left the Service, including provision for their health, training, and employment.A Committee was appointed to inquire into this important branch of the subject by the late President of the Local Government Board, who is now Postmaster-General, and in the Report of that Committee it is stated that there is very urgent need for dealing with these questions. Although the number of disabled men hitherto discharged from the Navy and Army is less than might be expected, it is most desirable that an organisation should be set on foot at the earliest possible date for the performance of a duty which, is regarded as proper to be performed by the State. The number is growing day by day, and it is important that the new organisation should be in working order as early as possible. If we take these words out of the Bill, we take a very important function away from the statutory Committee which is going to be set up to deal with this question. Sir George Murray's Committee, to whose Report I have just alluded, says:—We observe that the Select Committee on Naval and Military Services (Pensions and Grants) has recommended the appointment of a statutory Committee to 863 deal with the pensions, separation allowances and supplementary grants payable to sailors and soldiers and their dependants. We therefore venture to suggest that some advantage might result from the constitution of one body, charged with all the functions to which we have alluded. In this way a more elaborate local organisation than we have recommended for the purpose of this report might be justified.We have received an indication from the Prime Minister that Parliament is about to adjourn for some considerable time. When, then, will it be possible to set up any new body to deal with this important question? Months will elapse before any such body can be created to deal with a question 'which is really urgent, and I therefore hope that the House of Commons will give no countenance whatever to the proposal to take away from this statutory Committee this very important function.
§ Mr. BOOTH
I have a certain amount of sympathy with the object aimed at by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. We shall, I think, inevitably hear more of this problem. It is really a very big one. But at the same time I support the Government in their decision to retain these words in the Bill. It so happens that I am concerned very closely with a committee which deals with cases of Belgian soldiers who have been mutilated. I do not mean that they were mutilated in cold blood. I refer to those who have lost the use of certain limbs. It is very important, when a man is leaving hospital, to make the best possible provision for him, and to ascertain, not only what was his previous occupation, but also what are his needs and desires in regard to artificial limbs. And if you are going to put him in a position to do even limited service, you cannot delay operations. It is very urgent to find out what is needed for the individual soldier or officer who is maimed, and to provide him with the best artificial substitute for the limb he has lost. Therefore any action on the part of the Government with a view to dealing with these matters in the speediest possible manner has my heartiest support.
§ Mr. BIGLAND
While sympathising with the idea of those who have brought up this Amendment, I feel that this Bill provides the only way in which we can deal with this question. We are all of us in favour of having important committees to undertake work of this character, but I am at a loss to conceive how it is possible to get a more important committee, or a more able one, than it is hoped 864 to secure under this present Bill. All of us have taken a deep interest in this matter, and I quite see there will be an enormous amount of work for this Committee to undertake. The only point in which, in my opinion, this Bill is deficient, in regard to the question of supplying those who are partly incapacitated with work, is that nothing so far has been said as to the cases of the men who are receiving 10s. per week for a period of twenty-six weeks under the Insurance Act. There is no reference in the Bill to the position of these men. The work of this Committee will be to try and find work for the incapacitated, and the first difficulty they will come up against is that no man will be able to take the situation offered him without losing the 10s. per week which, if he has been certified as being incapacitated from work by the medical authorities, he gets under the Insurance Act. There are many cases in which work can be found for the men at from 7s. 6d. to 10s. per week, but the men refuse to take such situations, because they will lose the 10s. a week insurance money. I hope that the Government will intervene with the National Insurance Commissioners with a view to getting rid of that difficulty. I think the difficulty could be got over easily by adopting a sliding scale. If a sliding scale could be arranged it would be one of the great works of this Committee. I hope the Bill will pass in its present form.
§ Mr. C. E. PRICE
There is a paragraph in Clause 3 which carries out what the Amendment deals with. The three lines of that paragraph contain the only form of expression as to what we wish to be done for these disabled soldiers, apart from their pensions. As I can raise the question by moving the deletion of that paragraph on that Clause, I think it better to reserve what I have to say until then. It seems to me that those three lines are out of keeping with the Bill and the operations of the Committee appointed to deal with this matter. To say that those three lines embody the whole of the recommendations in the Report of the Committee is altogether beside the mark. I quite realise that when the Bill was framed it was framed to carry out its description, namely, a Naval and Military War Pensions Bill. In that respect it is all right, but the Bill deals with two important Reports of Committees appointed by this House. In the Report of the Committee as to what should be done with disabled soldiers and sailors a great many 865 recommendations were made, and the three lines in this Bill dealing with those matters are wholly inadequate. I shall therefore move that the paragraph be deleted, so that we may discuss the whole question of dealing with the matter in another Bill.
§ Mr. ROCH
I quite see the force of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill that it is rather too late, on Report stage, to raise the issue that is raised by this Amendment, but I think it has struck a good many people who have had more opportunity of looking at this Bill that it was really intended to be, and is, a Bill for pensions and pensions only, and that this proposal for dealing with disabled persons has been pitchforked into it and does not work in with the structure of the Bill at all. When you look at the constitution of the Committee, everyone will agree that the real care of disabled men, and possibly of instructing them and making them fit for industry again, cannot be adequately dealt with by this Committee. The proper Committee to tackle that problem would be one of large employers and workmen, because only they can properly solve the problem. But as the right hon. Gentleman says, it is too late in this Session, in view of the Adjournment, to get a fresh proposal carried through, and we must, therefore, make the best we can of this Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give earnest consideration to the problem of these disabled men. It is entirely a separate problem from that of pensions. I know that he has taken a great interest in it and has shown the greatest sympathy for these people. I would ask that when the Committee is formed, and when he finds that the problem of pensions is as much as this Committee can tackle, he will not hesitate to give the matter his consideration and come to this House, if necessary, for powers to deal with it. He may have seen in the "Morning Post" some months ago that in Austria they have a scheme for dealing with the problem which was working well. I do not know whether it will be possible to get details of the Austrian scheme, but I am quite sure he will find there will be a grave and serious industrial problem to solve which cannot be adequately solved by this Committee or under this Bill. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his earnest consideration to that matter.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
The point that is under discussion is really the most important point in connection with the Bill. It raises the oft-debated point, upon which there is a great difference of opinion, as to whether the details of the care of our disabled and wounded officers and men should be under the control of a central authority, or whether it should be dealt with locally by various committees appointed up and down the country. So far as the wording of the Bill is concerned, the Bill is probably correct, and we should be wise to reject any Amendment to-day, because it does not necessarily prevent the subsequent appointment of advisory or assistant local committee to do the obviously necessary work. I was associated with one of these very important committees in Liverpool in connection with the Boer War. There we had a large number of ladies and gentlemen associated with different branches of the work, because it was exceedingly desirable that they should be in touch, almost personal touch, with thousands of the dependants with whom the committee had to deal, particularly the disabled. It would be absolutely impossible for any statutory Committee in London to know or adequately deal with any of the requirements and details of these cases. There is a feeling abroad, to which expression has frequently been given, that it is not desirable that the sole control and power of dealing with these matters should be vested entirely in the statutory central Committee. I do not anticipate that that will be the final effect of the Bill. In the meantime it is urgently necessary at the present moment that provision should be made for these cases, which are now coming forward, and with that object we ought to pass the Bill to-day, leaving these words in, therefore not agreeing to the Amendment; but it ought to be distinctly understood among Members of the House that on some subsequent occasion this should not prevent us from proposing, if necessary, that these local committees shall be established and receive the necessary authority to attend to local matters in such way as they may be advised.
§ Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Watson Rutherford) has misread the Bill, because it proposes to set up local committees to deal with the very point he raises. Take, for instance, the Corporation of Liverpool. Under this Bill they 867 will be empowered to establish a committee, who, in addition to the recommendation of pensions, will take into consideration the question of disabled soldiers and officers. The statutory Committee in London will not look after each individual-case, but it will be looked after by the town itself. I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn. This committee will investigate the case of every person who applies for the pension, apart from the pensions for mothers and children, which are fixed by the Report of the Select Committee, and will keep a record of the men and their dependants.
§ Mr. J. SAMUEL
The local committee. Therefore I contend that the local committee will be the beet to look after the care of disabled soldiers in cases where they are able to do partial work. When you take into consideration the wide scope of the powers and the appointment of local committees by town councils and county councils, I think the councils themselves, in many cases, will be able to find work for those men. I would point out that it is very difficult to get men to work on all these local committees. This Committee will be a very important one, and will cover the whole of the question. It is much better to empower that Committee to cover the whole question than to multiply the number of local committees doing similar work.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. KING
I beg to move in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "consisting of twenty-nine members appointed as hereinafter mentioned," and to insert instead thereof the words "A statutory Committee shall consist of twenty-nine members who shall be appointed as follows, that is to say."
I have several Amendments down on the Paper. They are mostly of a drafting character, but they are all matters, so I am informed, and having looked into them myself I am inclined to agree with my informant, of real important drafting significance. They are all cases where the actual meaning and clearness of the Bill is attained by my Amendment. I say that by way of introduction, because I dare say they will not all be accepted. I hope that 868 all of them will be considered, with a view possibly to some drafting alterations in another place. The first Amendment is perhaps the least important of them all, but I contend that it would make the actual constitution of the committee much clearer, and it is a description much neater than the drafting in the actual text of the Bill.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
As the hon. Member says, these are all drafting Amendments. When the hon. Member fills up his return for the National Register he will be able to put himself down as a qualified draftsman. I think I can accept one or two of his Amendments later on, but this Amendment is not an improvement on the original drafting, therefore I must reject it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. DICKINSON
had given notice of the following Amendment: In Sub-section (4), to leave out the words "chairman and vice-chairman, or either of them," and to insert instead thereof the words "statutory Committee for the salaries of the secretary of the Committee and other officers employed by the Committee and for other administrative expenses of the Committee."
§ Mr. DICKINSON
May I point out that when the discussion took place on the Money Resolution, you, Sir, I think, pointed out that the occasion for discussing this question would arise in Committee, but when we came to the point in Committee, after a good deal of discussion, during which the merits of the payment of the chairman were discussed very fully, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said:—The majority [of the House] are clearly, in my judgment, in favour of such a plan as is indicated by the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City. I am confident that the Government do not desire to impose on the House or the Corporation any hard and fast system of their own, and I will undertake to consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we will consider this between now and Report in the hope that we can bring up a proposal then."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July 1915, col. 278.]869 Now we are placed in this position: that we have no opportunity of discussing this matter now because it has not been brought up by the Government. On a further point of Order, might I submit to you that my first Amendment, which is to leave out certain words providing for the payment of the chairman, would be in order, even under the terms of the Money Resolution. If you still think that my Amendment is not in order as it stands I would ask leave to be allowed to move the omission of the words "the chairman."
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I am quite clear that the Amendment, as it stands, is not in order. The Resolution of the House was that a sum of money might be paid out of public funds to the chairman and vice-chairman. Then the hon. Member proposed to substitute for the chairman and vice-chairman the statutory Committee for various salaries for officials. That is a totally different destination from that to which the House has already agreed. He proposes to cut down the chairman, and his next proposal, which does not stand on the Paper, is to omit the chairman altogether, so that the chairman should not be paid. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has an Amendment which meets the same point. I will call upon him.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I beg to move, in Sub-section (4), to leave out the word "and" ["the chairman and vice-chairman"], and to insert instead thereof the word "or."
Under my Amendment there will be an option to the Committee to pay either the chairman or the vice-chairman, and if that is accepted there will be a consequential Amendment to leave out "or either of them" in the next line. It was stated on the Committee stage that some concession would be made. We had a distinct pledge from the President of the Local Government Board, and I suggest that this is meeting the Government.
§ Mr. DICKINSON
I beg to second the Amendment.
In my view the better plan would have been to pay the secretary, who is the real official of the body, and it would have been better to leave all the members of the body unpaid on an equality. Inasmuch as I had not an opportunity of moving that I quite agree that it would be a mistake to put the chairman in the posi- 870 tion of a paid official. The vice-chairman would then become more or less the official secretary.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
I cannot agree with my hon Friend (Sir F. Banbury) that a distinct pledge was given that the Government would withdraw from the position they originally took up—that was that they would keep the power to pay the chairman or the vice-chairman or both. There was no distinct pledge. What happened was this: The House undoubtedly was disturbed at the idea of creating, in these days when we are all trying to enforce economy, two paid appointments in connection with this Bill. On behalf of the Government I said that we took the power, and we fully hoped that we should be able to obtain our ideal, which was that the chairman should be a man of some considerable dignity and importance, a well-known popular person and one who would command general confidence and would not desire to be paid, but that the work was of such an arduous nature, requiring attendance all day and every day, that it would be necessary to pay the vice-chairman. That I hoped would be the result after the Bill was passed. My right hon. Friend came in at that time and went a little further than that, and perhaps expressed a preference for the payment of the secretary rather than the vice-chairman, but again he indicated that he would consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others, and that we should try to come to some satisfactory solution of the problem on which we were all mainly agreed and that, he would try to see whether he could not bring up some definite proposition on this stage. We have not put down any Amendment. We have rather awaited the discussion, but I am prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and to put it actually into the Bill, that payment can only be made either of the chairman or the vice-chairman, it being the intention of the Government still to endeavour to find someone to fill the position of chairman such as I have described, and to find a working chairman, but I think it will be necessary to pay him if we are asking him to do the very arduous duties which may be cast upon him.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
No consideration has been given to this question at present, and no name is within measurable distance of being considered at present for the position of vice-chairman of this body.
§ Mr. HOGGE
I am rather sorry to hear that we are so far away from the choice of the most effective official for this organisation. I waive that point and put this other one, mainly to the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), as to whether he realises how much more work there is going to be under this Bill than is outlined in the Clauses. There is, for instance, the point which has already been raised with regard to the separate care of the disabled soldiers and sailors, and it may be, I think probably it will be found to be expedient to pay even the chairman as well as the vice-chairman, in order that subsequently one of these officials should have laid upon him the duty of organising that side of the work. I hope, therefore, the Government will stick to that position very closely, and retain for themselves the power to pay both a chairman and a vice-chairman, because as the work grows and develops it may be extremely essential that a man of that kind should be in charge of this great department of work.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: Leave out the words "or either of them."—[Sir F. Banbury.]
§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, in Subsection (6), to leave out the words "as they think fit."
I hope this is one of the drafting Amendments which can be accepted, because it really makes some difference whether it is necessary to prove that this Committee has thought fit to make restrictions or conditions. The words mean just the same whether they are in or out, but it may impose something additional in the legal way in order to prove that they have thought fit.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
I cannot accept this, but I shall be able to accept the next Amendment with a little alteration.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, to leave out the word "provision" ["Subject to this 872 provision"], and to insert instead thereof the words, "the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section."
I think this is obviously necessary. The Bill speaks about the provision when really there are three provisions in the preceding words. There is the provision about seven being the quorum, about sub-committees and also about imposing conditions and restrictions.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
If the hon. Member will leave out the words "this provision" I will accept the Amendment, and it is a good one on the drafting of the Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. KING
I beg to move, in Sub-section (7), after the word "that" ["Provided that if a member"], to insert "(a)."
Here you have a double proviso which is not intended to be doubled, that is two provisions acting simultaneously and together when they are meant as alternatives. The way it is drafted in the Bill implies that provided something happens, something else at the same time shall operate. That is obviously not the intention, but that is the way in which it may be read and construed in a Court of Law, or certainly if not so construed I am certain that a legal argument might be raised in that way.
§ Mr. HAYES FISHER
A little alteration may be necessary, but I do not share the hon. Member's fears about the Law Courts.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Sir C. NICHOLSON
I beg to move, at end of Clause, to add the following Subsection:—For the purpose of enabling the statutory Committee to discharge their functions, the Admiralty and the War Office shall, on request, supply the statutory Committee with such particulars as they may require with regard to anything paid by them to any officer, sailor, 873 marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant, and such Committee shall on request duly communicate all such similar information to any charitable body intimately interested in the case of any officer, sailor, marine, soldier, widow, child, or dependant.I am in a very difficult position, because I thought a Clause would have been brought forward by the Government to this effect. When I moved a similar Clause in Committee the right hon. Gentleman said he would like to accept the underlying principle of the Amendment, but he could not accept the words "and no supplementary grant shall be made until such certificate has been obtained." I have been careful to strike those words out of the Amendment. The right hon1 Gentleman also said, "If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will on Report bring up words to carry out the general principle of the Amendment, cutting out the words to which I have referred. The imporance of mutual information being given all round has been borne out by almost everything that has been said in the Debate to-day. The only object that we have is that these hard cases should be dealt with in the best way. I should like to ask how it is possible for people like the secretaries of regimental funds or of trade union funds or of charitable bodies to conduct their business unless they are in possession of full information of what the Government is doing in each particular case? If they are not given this full information, how can they possibly arrive at a reasonable decision as to what they shall do with their funds?
§ Mr. SPEAKER
Is this relevant to Clause 1? This Clause establishes the statutory Committee, appoints a number of members and the quorum, deals with the way expenses are to be paid, appoints chairman and vice-chairman, and so on. The Amendment deals with other matters which I think would be more relevant to Clause 3.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Sir C. NICHOLSON
I understood when the question was dealt with in Committee on Clause 3 the Chairman expressed doubt whether it was in its proper place, and said it should have come on Clause 1. Therefore I am moving it now in view of that decision. All I am anxious about is that the statutory Committee shall be bound to give full information to any body legitimately interested in any particular case. 874 It is particularly necessary in dealing with cases for the prevention of fraud. Unless full information is given we shall have any amount of confusion and overlapping in regard to charitable relief, and I think some method of communicating the information must be imposed upon the statutory Committee.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
I still think this Amendment is not in its proper place. I would be prepared to accept the hon. Member's Amendment on Clause 3. I do not think it is in place on this Clause.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.