HC Deb 28 July 1926 vol 198 cc2112-4
Captain WEDGWOOD BENN

May I ask the Prime Minister when it is proposed to take into consideration His Majesty's most gracious Message delivered yesterday?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin)

I do not propose to take it at all.

Captain BENN

May I put a point of Order to you, Mr. Speaker. I submit to you that the custom of this House is that we should take into consideration a Message delivered to this House under the sign manual. I observe that in May's "Parliamentary Practice" it states that these Messages may be regarded, in short, as additions to the Royal Speech at the commencement of the Session, submitting other matters to the deliberations of Parliament. If they are in the same category as the Royal Speech, the same rights that we have of moving Amendments or considered Addresses in reply would be enjoyed by this House, and if we give up the right of moving a humble Address in reply to this Message we may have created a precedent subsequently for losing our right to move Amendments to. the major Message which takes the form of a speech. May further says: This analogy between a Royal Speech and a Message under the sign manual is supported by several circumstances common to both. He goes on to say that Messages relating to important public events are answered by an Address, and he further states: These messages are, according to usage, referred to the consideration of a Committee of the Whole House. Further, the Home Secretary himself said when we had the last Message: The message is an old form of courtesy which has been in existence in this House from time immemorial. This particular Message was sent to us in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920. have been looking at the precedents for Messages sent in pursuance of that Act, and I find that on every occasion but one a humble Address has been moved in reply to the Message, and I find that on every occasion, without any exception, the Prime Minister has given notice that the Message would be taken into consideration by the House—either the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary on his behalf. Therefore, I submit to you that the House should not part with this opportunity, provided by Statute and by His Majesty's most Gracious Message, to discuss in general the use of these powers, which, of course, are of an exceptional kind, and I respectfully submit. to you that when the House granted these powers to the Executive in the Act of 1020, it specifically hedged them about with these precautions in order that such opportunities for Debate might occur.

Mr. SPEAKER

I do not find in what the hon. and gallant Member has submitted anything that calls for my intervention. What has been proposed on the present occasion is following the precedent of the 4th May, 1921.

Captain BENIN

I do not know whether I should appeal to you, Sir, to know whether you can direct us as to how we should go to work to preserve our privileges, but I would respectfully submit to you that, whereas on that occasion, a Motion was made that the Message would be taken into consideration though not proceeded with. On every other occasion, to the number of six, the precedent stands that a humble Address should be moved, and if nobody else moves it, would it be in order for any other hon. Member to move a humble Address in reply to His Majesty's Gracious Message?

Mr. SPEAKER

If he can find his own time for the purpose.

Captain BENN

With great respect, Sir, I submit to you that the privilege of moving a humble Address is, apart from its ceremonial courtesy, an important opportunity for the expression of the opinion of the Members of this House. If I may submit a hypothetical case, supposing the Government pursued this procedure with the Gracious Speech from the Throne, and no Address were moved, we should then be deprived of most important Debates on general policy.

Mr. SPEAKER

I think the hon. and gallant Member need not entertain that fear. The precedent of 4th May, 1921, is the one that has been followed.

Captain BENN

I apologise for pressing this question. I should not do it unless I thought it were a matter of importance. May we take it now that the procedure has been changed, and that in future these Emergency Regulations will be brought into force without preliminary discussion for which a humble Address affords an opportunity?

Mr. SPEAKER

There is no question of bringing them into force. They have force for seven days, not longer, unless confirmed by the House. The House, under the Statute, has power to confirm or not to confirm after the expiry of the stated period.