HC Deb 26 January 1943 vol 386 cc370-2
Mr. Ellis Smith (by Private Notice)

asked the Leader of the House why the amended Pensions Warrant (Cmd. 6419) was submitted to His Majesty for signature before an opportunity had been given to this House to discuss its provisions?

Mr. Eden

The procedure adopted in this case was strictly constitutional and in accordance with precedent. The Royal Warrant is an instrument by which His Majesty expresses his will and pleasure as to the pensions and grants which, on the advice of the Government he directs a particular Minister to pay. The Warrant thus comes into operation by reason of His Majesty's signature but by practice it is laid before the House of Commons and becomes a Command Paper. It is always open to the House, if it so desires, to discuss the provisions of a Warrant and if, in the light of any such discussions, further amendment appeared to the Government to be desirable His Majesty would be advised to issue an amending Warrant. There has thus been no departure on this occasion from constitutional form or recognised practice, and the usual steps can, of course, be taken if a discussion is generally desired.

Mr. Smith

Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that no one raised the issue of the constitutional point? The point is that the procedure at present is undemocratic. Before His Majesty is advised in this way in future will the Leader of the House consider the advisability of giving the House an opportunity of considering the proposals of the Minister before they are submitted to His Majesty?

Mr. Eden

My hon. Friend, I think, misunderstands. The present position is and always has been that the Royal Warrant is submitted to His Majesty for signature on the responsibility of the Government, and I do not think I could possibly give an undertaking that before any Royal Warrant is submitted to His Majesty it will come to the House for discussion. The practice is that if the House wishes to raise any matters connected with the Royal Warrant it always has the opportunity to do so, and, if it is so decided by the Government, an amending Warrant can be issued.

Mr. Bellenger

Was not this Royal Warrant giving statutory effect only to matters that had already been carried out by the Minister for some considerable time past? What my hon. Friend and many hon. Members want is that at a time like this, when a Royal Warrant on pensions affects so many of our people, the House should have an opportunity of expressing in advance what it thinks it is desirable to include in the Warrant, because we know that it is rather difficult to get an amending Royal Warrant quickly.

Mr. Molson

Does not this raise the constitutional point that to propose expenditure is a privilege of the Government and is not a matter for the House?

Mr. Eden

The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) is quite right about this Royal Warrant, as I understand the position. I cannot give an undertaking that before a Royal Warrant is submitted to His Majesty the House will have an opportunity to discuss it. Apart from any constitutional practice, that would open the door far too wide as a matter of business. The right procedure is as I have laid it down, that if Members wish to discuss the Royal Warrant at any time, the matter can be raised through the ordinary channels and, if necessary, an amending Warrant moved later.