CLAUSE 7.—(Expenses payable out of moneys provided by Parliament.) (Hansard, 30 November 1937)

§ Mr. Sexton
I would like to know whether this Clause covers compensation to volunteers who are called out to assist in air-raid precautions practices. Most of these volunteers will be workers in the localities, many of them with wives and families and other obligations, and I want to know whose liability it will be if anything should happen to them during their period of training. I can quite imagine that in the circumstances of a black-out, with these volunteers going round the streets, serious accidents may occur to some of them. Will they have to bear the cost of that themselves, or will the local authority have to bear it? I should like some definite assurance on this matter, because if there is nothing in the 2002 Bill to cover these people, I fear that when you ask for volunteers, many of these workers will say, "Who is covering me, if anything happens to me during the preparations for resisting a hostile attack from the air?" I think that assistance rendered before an air raid ought to be taken into consideration as well as assistance during an air raid, and I think the Government ought to accept the responsibility for paying compensation to any volunteer who takes part in practice work of this nature and suffers injury.

§ Mr. Hayday
I was going to raise this point under the next Clause, where I thought it would be more appropriate, but if it is in order to mention it here, I will do so. There is an Amendment on the Paper, with which my name is associated, to Clause 8, and if that is not to be called, I would like to have an opportunity of mentioning the matter if it is relevant on this Clause.

The Chairman
The Amendment to which the hon. Member refers is certainly out of order, because it would go beyond the Financial Resolution.

§ Mr. Hayday
I wish, therefore, to support the point put forward by my hon. Friend. I believe that during the Great War very special arrangements were made in relation to merchant seamen with regard to compensation and for loss of effects due to enemy action, and I see no reason why there should not be some special arrangements made here, either by insurance or by the State undertaking the liability, perhaps jointly with the local authority, in relation to workmen and enrolled volunteers. There are two distinct classes. There is the citizen who becomes an enrolled volunteer, ready to give his services under conditions of actual warfare in the form of an air raid, and running very special risks. I do not think we should call upon such volunteers to run those grave risks. They may not all be males. There may be females rendering first-aid services under conditions tantamount to being actually on a battlefield. Their risks will be quite as great, and if there is to be no provision made for them, it certainly appears to me that it will be a deterrent and that it may also cause some anxiety.
In relation to the workmen, I can quite conceive, if unfortunately such a set of circumstances did arise that your great electricity undertakings, your gas works, gas mains, water mains, and so on were damaged, that workmen would be called out to deal with these matters, again in circumstances where there would be no ordinary, but rather extraordinary, risks run. I would like the Under-Secretary of State to give us some assurance that steps will be taken in such circumstances to give protection in the form of compensation.

§ Mr. Lloyd
The position in this matter is that my right hon. Friend, as the hon. Member doubtless knows, received a deputation from the Trades Union Congress some time ago in regard to a good many matters about these volunteers. The Committee will appreciate that it is our desire to settle these new problems arising in regard to these services by agreement with all the chief interests concerned, but the Trades Union Congress did want to have 2004 a further meeting with regard to the question of compensation, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman is voicing that point of view this evening. The Government take the view that any scheme of peace-time training of personnel for public air-raid precautions services, whether volunteers or volunteer employés of local authorities, must make adequate provision for compensation in the event of death or injury. Such provision has already been included in many of the arrangements that have been made up to the present. Now however that training for air-raid precautions is being more widely adopted, the measures hitherto in force will have to be made more comprehensive, and that will involve the formulation of a general scheme setting out the basis on which compensation will be paid. The methods and machinery for dealing with compensation will require further consideration. For example, it might be found desirable to deal with the matter by means of insurance policies, the premiums on which would, of course, reckon as approved for payment. On the other hand, it might be decided that it would be better that the Exchequer should assume the liability for payment. Whichever method is adopted, however, the Committee can rest assured that arrangements will be made to provide adequate compensation for members of public air-raid precautions services undergoing peace-time training.

§ Mr. Shinwell
We welcome that very important announcement, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will enlighten me on one point, namely, whether, for the purposes of the financial provision to which he has just referred, namely the payment of compensation, it will be necessary to have any Supplementary Estimate, or whether such provision is contained in this Clause.

§ Sir Arthur Salter
Before the hon. Gentleman replies, did I understand him to say that the Government are considering abrogating one of the main, fundamental principles of British finance, namely, that public risks should be taken without insurance by the public funds? If so, it seems to me to be a very serious thing indeed.

§ Mr. Lloyd
I am aware of the point to which the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) has referred with regard to the principle of public risk. He may have noticed that I 2005 indicated that it may well be that the Exchequer would bear these liabilities. That is very much in the mind of the Government, although the position is slightly different, having regard to the fact that at present it is the liability of local authorities.

§ Mr. Shinwell
This is a most important point. My point is whether financial provision is contained in this Clause to enable the Government to prepare compensation schemes and finance such schemes. The reason that I put the point is because you, Sir Dennis, have made it clear that an Amendment on the Order Paper which provides for the payment of compensation in respect of the death or injury of any person in the course of his employment in these duties or in the case of an enrolled volunteer in connection with any air-raid precaution schemes, is invalid because it does not come within the scope of the Financial Resolution. Accepting your Ruling, as we must, and obviously it must be accepted by the Government equally, I press my point on the Under-Secretary, namely, that if it is out of order within the terms of the Financial Resolution to provide compensation, then no provision for compensation exists in this Clause, and I would ask him how such financial provision is to be provided at a later date. Is it to be through the medium of a Supplementary Estimate or in what other way?

§ Mr. Lloyd
I am advised that, as regards one way of dealing with this, we can do all that we wish to do under the Act. If it is a question of approving this expenditure for grant, that is quite clearly and obviously dealt with.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Approving expenditure for grant is quite different from financing a compensation scheme. No compensation scheme is of the least value unless it is fortified by financial provision. You have made it clear, Sir Dennis, that the Amendment in the name of some of my hon. Friends is out of order. Then how can the Under-Secretary maintain that provision is contained in the Bill to enable the Government to provide and finance compensation schemes? I am not clear about it. Perhaps I had better put it as a point of Order, namely, whether the Under-Secretary on behalf of the Government is entitled to maintain 2006 that such financial provision is embodied in the Act, in face of the fact that you have ruled that Amendment out of order.

The Chairman
The question as to what will be the meaning of this Bill if and when it becomes an Act and the question of my Ruling, are two different things. I have no doubt whatever on the Ruling I have given in regard to the Amendment, but if the Bill in its present form becomes an Act it will be for authorities other than myself to decide what is the meaning of the Act.

Mr. Shinweil
My contention is that financial provision for compensation schemes is expressly excluded. If it is not expressly excluded, why is it that the Amendment in question is not accepted by the Chair? I would ask the Under-Secretary to make the point much clearer than he has done, otherwise there will be doubt in the minds of the enrolled volunteers and those associated with such schemes as to whether in the event of death or injury compensation is to be provided.

§ Mr. Ede
It is a great pity that when we are involved in these legal points we have not the assistance of either of the Law Officers of the Crown. It is true that the Solicitor-General described himself as a make-weight, by which I suppose he meant that he was trying to bring the Under-Secretary up to a reasonable standard of weight for this purpose. We have, however, the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Croom-Johnson), and I am sure that he desires to assist the Committee in every way that he can. I should like to put this point to the Under-Secretary. Where these so-called volunteers are the employés of a local authority and they incur injury arising out of and in the course of their duties, I take it that there is little doubt that they will be entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, although I am not saying that it is adequate; but when we come to a volunteer who is not a servant of a local authority and he incurs injury in the course of his duty, what legal claim has he for compensation for injury, or what claim has his widow if his death occurs in the course of his training or work as a volunteer, he having voluntarily submitted himself to discipline?
2007 Has the Under-Secretary any statement that he can make in regard to those volunteers who are outside the service of a local authority? Will compensation to them be regarded by the State as ranking for grant to be deferred out of the moneys provided under this Clause? Once we get into a state where really difficult practices are being carried through by the volunteers, it will be essential that some provision should be made for them, seeing that many of them will be people of small means who cannot afford to lose any time through illness, if they are to give up some of their time to carry through some of the practices that will be required.

§ Mr. Hayday
I was inclined to be satisfied with what the Under-Secretary said, particularly in view of his statement with regard to the Trades Union Congress representatives. Whatever other difficulties there may be, my hon. Friends are capable of dealing with them, but I think it is clear that there can be no separation of the enrolled volunteer from the workman definitely engaged in the circumstances mentioned. Such workman has no contract of service and it is very questionable whether ordinary workmen's compensation would apply to him. I hope that hon. Members will not believe that workmen are safeguarded and that it is only desirable that there should be some safeguard for enrolled volunteers. The persons called upon to perform these tasks in the circumstances that may arise should be specially and adequately covered by compensation. I do not fall out with my hon. Friends who say that they cannot understand how it is that the Amendment to make financial provision in the Bill was ruled out, and yet on the other hand an undertaking should be given to that effect by the Under-Secretary. What the legal difficulties are I do not presume to know, but we urge that special protection should be given by way of assurance definitely settled with regard to those called upon to perform certain tasks in the circumstances mentioned.

§ Mr. Lloyd
I should say at once that there is no intention whatever, as I think my statement made clear, to make any separation between volunteers and the employés of local authorities. With re- 2008 gard to the other point, I am advised that this matter is amply safeguarded, and that complete powers exist to deal with claims to compensation.

§ Mr. Magnay
There ought to be no dubiety on this point. I was told by the chief constable of Gateshead recently that within three weeks there had been 800 volunteers in that borough—an amazing result. I view with some alarm the feelings of volunteers throughout the country, numbering, I imagine, thousands of men and possibly women too, in regard to what the Government are prepared to do in the way of adequate compensation. "Adequate" is a comparative term and what would be considered adequate by one, might not be considered adequate by another. I suggest that this Clause refers only to expenses payable out of moneys provided by Parliament. I do not think any actuary in the country could contemplate what compensation would be required in the event of an air raid. It is beyond the power of any permanent official, however clever or experienced, to say what amount would be required to meet "adequately," to use the word of the Under-Secretary himself, the compensation payable in the event of an air raid. This Committee should say, once and for all, that adequate provision will be made for this matter. I suggest again that the Clause has reference only to expenses payable out of moneys provided by Parliament, and that expenses and compensation cannot mean the same thing. This is a serious matter. It would be beyond the power of any insurance company or pool of insurance companies to undertake this liability. It is a matter for the Exchequer and the Exchequer alone, with the backing of the national finances behind it. I desire the Bill to pass, but I suggest that the Government ought to reconsider this matter and give us some idea of the amount of compensation that would be required. In my opinion it would be huge.

§ Mr. Ritson
I am very anxious about this matter, because I was one of those who volunteered to help women and children during those terrible times that we had on the North-East coast in the late War. Working along with me was a most respected citizen of Sunderland. He was killed—I had left him only three minutes 2009 before he met his death—and the maximum compensation payable to his widow was £30. If it gets abroad that this is the kind of compensation that is to be expected, it will have a very serious effect. In the case to which I refer nearly every lawyer in the North of England tried to get that pension increased, but without success. If a man is killed performing services of this kind in a time of war and his widow is left with a pension of £30, it is a very serious matter. She would be as well off with the Old Age pension. That is why we ask that there should be a definite statement on the subject from that Box. I understand that in my own town hundreds have volunteered, and they will certainly expect that compensation on different lines from that given in the case I have mentioned, will be available in any cases which may occur.

§ Sir Arnold Wilson
I suggest that there are two distinct questions involved here. The first is that of the compensation which may be claimed or payable in respect of accidents occurring during practice and not during war. The second, which is quite independent, is that of the amount of compensation which may be claimed after war has broken out. In that case, the compensation will probably be covered not by Statute, but by Royal Warrant, as in the case of the armed forces of the Crown and that could be passed through all its stages in a very short time. Meantime, as a former member of His Majesty's armed forces, I hope this Committee will not ask the Government to grant larger pensions or compensation in cases of civilians accidentally killed or injured during an air raid, than they would grant to the widows or dependants of men on active service who are serving the country in an identical capacity. The proper solution, I suggest, would be that an undertaking should be given, perhaps at some subsequent date, that anybody killed in the service of the Crown or of the local authorities in connection with air raids, should have not less favourable treatment than that which would be accorded to people of similar rank and status in the armed forces of the Crown at the time; and that the Workmen's Compensation Act should apply to volunteers or servants of local authorities in the case of accidents which occur during practice.

Mr. Davidson
The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) put forward the plea which many of us here have been making, that some definite words should be placed in the Bill giving a guarantee in regard to compensation for injuries in these cases. I warned the Under-Secretary in my own humble way, that this question ought not to be treated as something inferior and that this service should not be regarded as a third-rate service compared with front-line service. Those who volunteer for this duty are just as much front-line fighters as any other section of the community. The probability is that in many areas local authorities will make use of unemployed men who have, unfortunately for themselves, the time at their disposal for this work. On what basis are these men to assume that their compensation will be fixed? Will it be based on their unemployment benefit? Then there is the case of ex-service men who have been wounded in previous wars and are already receiving pensions. Many of them, I take it, will be employed in this work. If they receive further injuries in the course of that work, will their pensions be taken into account in fixing compensation? There ought to be some guarantee. I suggest again that the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend have been looking upon this important question of air-raid precautions as a third-rate question. They look upon men in the front line as coming first, upon those in munition work as coming second, and upon air-raid precaution volunteers as coming third. That should not be, and the people who undertake this work should receive some guarantee from the Government. It will seriously retard the flow of volunteers and cause a damping of enthusiasm if the guarantee is not forthcoming on this Clause. My hon. Friends cannot see their way to support a Clause which gives no adequate provision to those people who are giving voluntary service.

§ Sir Stafford Cripps
We are really getting into a most fantastic situation over this Bill. Clause 8 gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purposes of Clause 7, and we have been told by you, Sir—and I respectfully agree—that an Amendment which deals with compensation cannot he moved 2011 because it is outside the Financial Resolution. The terms of the Financial Resolution show clearly that it is outside. That Resolution was in this form: That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to secure that precautions shall be taken with a view to the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air, it is expedient to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray— (a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the general superintendence and direction of measures taken under the said Act, or in provicing such services and training such persons and acquiring such equipment, appliances, and other material as he considers it necessary to famish for the purpose of affording such protection as aforesaid; and (b) the cost of grants to local authorities … You have ruled that the provision of compensation does not fall within that Financial Resolution. That is to say, that there is no power in the Bill for Parliament to make any appropriation of moneys in respect of compensation to people, either volunteers or workers. From some message sent from some other place, the Under-Secretary gets up and says that he is assured it is all right. That is not a fair way of dealing with the House. It is fantastic, when the Chairman has rightly ruled that the matter cannot be discussed, for the Under-Secretary to get up, on account of what some civil servant has told him, and say, "We need not worry; it is true we cannot discuss the matter, but it is all covered in the Bill." That is a perfectly fantastic state of affairs. It is quite clear that it is not covered in the Financial Resolution, and the Government cannot under Clause 7, however much the Under-Secretary may give an undertaking to do this, that and the other, make provision under any regulations issued by the Home Secretary under Clause 8 for compensation, because it is outside the powers granted to him in this Bill. He will not be able to do so without an Amendment to the Financial Resolution or without a fresh Resolution.
We shall not be able to have a Clause introduced into the Bill or a new Bill without a new Financial Resolution, and it is not satisfactory, and will certainly not satisfy us, for the hon. Gentleman to get up and say, "I am sure it is all right." We prefer the Ruling of the Chairman to the assurance of the hon. Gentleman; and 2012 I think the House is entitled to prefer the Ruling of its own Chairman to the assurance of some anonymous civil servant who sends a message by the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Under-Secretary as to what he thinks. This has never been thought of. Obviously that is the truth of the matter. This is a last-minute inspiration to try and get out of a difficulty. Surely it is better to face it. If the Government propose to do it, as we understand they do, let them get the machinery right by which to do it. Let them get the Bill in the proper form. If it is necessary to have a new Financial Resolution before they can introduce an Amendment, we must have it, but we cannot proceed with legislation on this basis, legislation which our Chairman tells us cannot go forward, but which some civil servant tells us can. Unless the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General is coming here to dispute your Ruling and say you are wrong, we certainly cannot be satisfied.

§ Mr. Elliot
It seems a little hard that after the assurance had been given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in advance of the Amendment which is being raised by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), it should be subsequently questioned so much. Further than that, a point has been raised by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) who are anxious that definite provisions for adequate compensation should be put into the Bill. I would point out that the Amendment which was put down did not ask for that, but for an assurance that it should be possible to provide the compensation. Let me assure the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) who, I am sure, is most anxious to be reassured on this point, that there is no question of any statement being made on the basis of a last-minute discussion of a message carried by a Parliamentary Private Secretary. The hon. and learned Member suffers from so suspicious a mind that almost any reassurance seems to him to convey some veiled threat or to be not sufficiently adequate. I am sure he will accept the assurance from me—

§ Sir S. Cripps
No.

§ Mr. Elliot
Well, wait a minute; He is so suspicious that he does not wait for 2013 me to ask him what I wish him to accept from me. This matter has been the subject not of consultation with an anonymous civil servant but of consultation within the Cabinet, and a policy has been determined; and the assurance which is given is not the assurance of some anonymous civil servant.

§ Sir S. Cripps
I said that I accept absolutely the assurance of the Under-Secretary, but what we cannot accept is the statement of an anonymous civil servant that the Bill covers that assurance, in view of the Ruling which has been given from the Chair.

§ Mr. Elliot
I think the hon. and learned Member was so anxious to discover some hidden snare in this—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—let me finish my sentence--that he did not listen fully to the statement by the Under-Secretary. Let me do my best to reassure both him and the Committee. The question was taken further by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), who said there were two points upon which the Committee wished to be reassured—the danger to life and limb in case of war and the danger to life and limb in case of peace. The same thing was raised by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), who said, "Do not regard this as any sort of third-line activity. This is a first-line activity in war, just as service would be in the trenches," and we all accept that. An hon. Member gave a moving account of how he had once parted from a friend doing air-raid work and how that friend was killed almost immediately afterwards.
Let me say, and it will be proof to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol and others that this has been a matter of very full consideration, that on 29th July this year the Home Secretary made a public statement about the intentions of the Government. He said that the Government would, in the event of war, lay before Parliament proposals for the payment of compensation which would cover members of public air-raid precautionary services not otherwise entitled to compensation who might be killed or injured while on duty. That is to say that in war we would regard these as on a par with the armed forces, and the Home Secretary has given an undertaking to that effect. That shows that the matter 2014 has been in our minds. Now I come to the relatively lesser, but more immediate, question of the position in case of accident or injury taking place while—

§ Mr. Shinwell
May we not deal with one point at a time? He has told us that the Home Secretary intimated on 29th July the intention of the Government to provide compensation, and presumably to provide it in this Measure.

§ Mr. Elliot
No.

§ Mr. Shinwell
At all events, to provide the finance for the compensation in this Resolution. You cannot provide compensation unless you have the finance. Sufficient time has elapsed since 29th July, and in the preparation of the Bill, to permit of the inclusion of the assurance in a definite form in the Bill.

§ Mr. Elliot
Let me read again what my right hon. Friend said. It was that the Government would lay before Parliament proposals for compensation which would cover members of public air-raid precautionary services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1937; col. 3296, Vol. 326.] etc., but that was in the event of war, and that stands. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said most specifically, and I repeat it—[Interruption.] I was just about to come to this point when I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell). It will be within the recollection of the Committee—

§ Mr. Shinwell
We are not discussing the question of compensation and the right hon. Gentleman is not making the point that he was asked to make.

§ Mr. Elliot
I am discussing the question of compensation in time of peace. An Amendment was put down asking for compensation to be paid. When we discussed the general question of compensation it was pointed out that these matters were still under discussion. An assurance was given, which I repeat, that any scheme of peace-time training of the personnel of air-raid precaution services, whether volunteers or employés of local authorities, must make adequate provision for compensation in the event of death or injury. I am giving the assurance. The methods and machinery for dealing with compensation will require further Consideration. It may be found desirable to deal with that by means of 2015 insurance policies or it may be decided that it would be better that the Exchequer should accept the liability for payment on a scale to be determined. The only point was about the assurance—

§ Sir S. Cripps
The Government can always give an assurance about anything, but the question is, is it in the Bill? The Under-Secretary stated that he was informed that it was within the Bill, and that the powers were within the Bill. We dispute that absolutely.

§ Mr. Elliot
I think the OFFICIAL REPORT will make this point clear and that the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) will find that the Under-Secretary said that we have powers, whether within or without the Bill. He said that we have powers, if it is done in one way, within the Bill, and if it is done in another way, outside the Bill. We have the powers to do it.

§ Sir S. Cripps
Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us which way it can be done under the Bill?

§ Mr. Elliot
We are advised that the insurance policy method can be done under the Bill. We are all agreed that the Government have power to give this assurance and everybody accepts the position that a Government assurance will be carried out.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Oh, no.

§ Mr. Elliot
I think the majority of hon. Members agree that it will be carried out.

§ Mr. Ede
If the Whips are put on.

§ Mr. Elliot
All that the Chair ruled, I understand, was that the Amendment, which was on the next Clause and not on this one, was not covered by the actual words of the Financial Resolution. I am saying that, either within the Financial Resolution or within the powers of the Government outside the Bill and the Financial Resolution, the Government have the power fully and completely to implement the assurance which has been given and which I now repeat; and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Committee as a whole will take that view.

§ Sir S. Cripps
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the words in the 2016 Financial Resolution which give the Government the power to spend money on compensation?

§ Sir A. Wilson
May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Section 9 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1926, which makes it clear that the Government have already the power to compensate any workman in their employment who may be injured in the course of his employment, and the Treasury have power to make regulations to cover any class or category of workmen in order to include them? These men, not being under military discipline, but being employés, being unquestionably servants but not servants of the Crown, are, as far as I can see, completely covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act.

§ Sir S. Cripps
The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. These people will not be employés of the Government. If they are employés at all, they will be employés of local authorities. A great number of them will be volunteers, and not employés, and not one of these will have any conceivable claim under any Workmen's Compensation Act.

§ Sir A. Wilson
If they are employés of local authorities, they are equally covered as regards workmen's compensation.

§ Mr. Elliot
I was asked what were the words in the Financial Resolution. I will take the words: any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the general superintendence and direction of measures taken under the said Act or in providing such services and training such persons … shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. Surely, that is a very wide power.

§ Sir S. Cripps
That has been held by the Chairman of this Committee not to be wide enough to cover the provision of compensation in case of death or injury suffered by any person in the course of his employment or as an enrolled volunteer in the discharge of his duties in connection with an air-raid precaution scheme. As far as the Committee is at the moment discussing the matter, that is the Ruling of the Chair, and, therefore, the Ruling of the House. How can the right hon. Gentleman now say that the words include that which the Chairman has said they do not include?

The Chairman
I ought, perhaps, to interpose a word upon that. My Ruling certainly would not go so far as to say that under this Bill, if and when it becomes an Act, the Government or a local authority could not enter into terms of employment which under the existing law would require insurance against injury to the employé.

§ Sir S. Cripps
May I point out to you that the Amendment which would have been moved on the next Clause, if there had been power to make regulations on the matter, deals with: the provision of compensation in respect of the death or injury of any person in the course of his employment or, in the case of an enrolled volunteer, in the discharge of his duties in connection with any air-raid precautions scheme. The undertaking that has been given by the Government covers both these classes. It is suggested, though I respectfully dissent from the suggestion, that the ordinary workman would be covered, apart from this Act for this special kind of risk, but that would not in the least give the Government power to carry out the undertaking they have given, because the enrolled volunteers would still have to be dealt with; and there is, as I understand the Ruling of the Chair, now amplified by you, Sir Dennis, no power under the Financial Resolution to expend money upon compensation for enrolled volunteers if they meet with accidents or death in the course of their duties in connection with air-raid precaution schemes. We can accept the assurance which the Government desire to give, but what we are pointing out is that they have no power to give it. They must have power under this Bill to do it, unless we have another Bill which is subsequently to give them the power to do it. It is no good the Government giving the assurance that they will do something unless they have the power to do it. We want them to have the power, but they have not got it.

§ Mr. Elliot
At any rate we are all agreed that we desire the Government to have this power. The hon. and learned Member said that if the Government have not the power to do it under this Bill there is no other way to do it, except by additional legislation. It will be within the recollection of the House that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said it might be decided that it would be better for 2018 the Exchequer to assume responsibility for payments, on a scale to be determined. That would be done on an Estimate for the Home Office.

§ Mr. Shinwell
That is precisely the point I put to the hon. Gentleman opposite: whether provision was contained in the Bill, or whether it would be necessary to come forward at a later stage with a Supplementary Estimate? The hon. Gentleman said, quite definitely, that a Supplementary Estimate would not be required because all the provisions were contained in the Bill.

§ Mr. Elliot
Surely we are now on a very small point, which should not require more than a word or two of explanation. If you put it in the Estimates, you do not need to put it in Supplementary Estimates. If we decided to do it, either under the Bill or by a Vote under Supplementary Estimates, it would be all the same. It is not denied that we can do it.

§ Sir S. Cripps
I certainly deny it. You must have power to make the Regulations. That is the object of Clause 8 of this Act. Merely by putting provision for a scheme into a Supplementary Estimate, you do not empower the Home Office to bring in a scheme; and there is no power under this Bill at present to bring into force any compensation scheme.

§ Mr. Elliot
It seems to me a somewhat academic discussion, because we are all agreed as to what we desire to be done. The Government has given an undertaking that it will be done. The question is, whether it can be done under this or whether further powers will have to be taken. It is admitted by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that if it cannot be done as the words stand now, there is no machinery by which it can be done. We want to pass this Clause. We believe it can be done under the powers the Government have. If it cannot be done, I give an undertaking that we will come down to the House and get the power. Whether it can be done under these powers can only be resolved when the Act is on the Statute Book. I can only say that I have greater confidence in my advisers than in the advice of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or the Chairman!"] I am only discussing the hon. and learned Member for 2019 East Bristol. The Chairman has given a Ruling. Since we agree that it ought to be done, since we agree that there are powers that go some of the way, and which the Government say go all of the way, I think we ought to conclude this discussion.

§ Sir S. Cripps
We are quite prepared to do so. If the Under-Secretary had given this undertaking at the beginning we should have been satisfied. Now that the Minister has given the undertaking we are quite satisfied.