268 
MAJORITY REPORT 
made in exercise of that power and do not appear to be a flagrant 
abuse thereof.” He also states that ‘‘ in view of the terms of 
the section, auditors have been unable to raise objection to sub- 
scriptions on the ground of absence of consideration or because 
an inadequate return was either contracted for or actually 
received for the payment.’ 
661. Mr. Alban Gordon (App. XIII, 30; Q. 7733, 7813-7818) 
suggests that the section should be retained, but that in order to 
prevent abuse, it might be amended to provide that payments in 
excess of a prescribed sum per head of the membership in any 
year shall be subject to the consent of the Department. The 
United Women’s Insurance Society, of which Mr. Alban Gordon 
is the Secretary (App. XXIV; 11-12; Q. 10,188-10,185), make a 
similar recommendation. This Society also inform us that 
during the years 1914-1924 they spent a sum of no less than 
£51,500 under the section. The National Federation of Rural 
Approved Societies (App. XXIX, 20; Q. 11,687-11,690) and the 
Scottish Rural Workers’ Approved Society (Q. 11,781-11,788) 
are opposed to the repeal of the section, which they say has 
proved useful for providing treatment and appliances in 
necessitous cases. The Joint Committee of Approved Societies 
(App. XIV, 385, 91-108; Q. 8726-8728) also think that the section 
should be allowed to stand. They contend that it has not 
endangered the financial position of Societies and is useful for 
meeting cases of special need. 
662. The use made of the section has undoubtedly gone far 
beyond the original intention of the legislature, and while we 
recognise the motives which originally prompted Societies to 
provide benefits in the manner indicated, we consider that any 
need for such payments has now passed, seeing that the benefits 
may be provided as additional benefits. 
663. We consider, however, that the power vested in Societies 
to make small subscriptions or donations to hospitals and similar 
charitable institutions should be retained, but that any such 
payments should not be made except out of realised surpluses, 
and that they should be made under some degree of central 
control. 
664. We therefore recommend that the Section should be 
repealed, and that provision should be made whereby a Society 
may, when formulating a scheme of additional benefits, allocate 
a specific sum out of the disposable surplus for the purpose 
of making payments to charitable institutions, this provision to 
be submitted as part of the Scheme and to be subject to the 
same scrutiny and control by the Central Department as are 
the proposals for additional benefits. We also think it desirable 
to define in fairly precise terms what constitutes a charitable 
institution. We do not consider that any institution should be 
eligible to receive payments unless it derives a substantial part