Motion for a return (humble address)
The House of Commons can use its power to call for ‘persons, papers and records’ to obtain government papers.
Each House has the power to call for the production of papers by means of a “motion for a return”, which is also referred to as a “humble address”. Erskine May, the authoritative guide to the practices and procedures of the House, explains that:
Returns may be called for by an Order or an humble Address, and it is not always clear which is appropriate. A return from the Privy Council or from departments headed by a Secretary of State is usually called for by means of a motion on the Order Paper for an humble Address. A return from a department not headed by a Secretary of State is usually sought directly by means of an Order of the House, although an humble Address will be appropriate where prerogative matters are closely involved.1
Calling for a paper which is then produced as a return confers on the paper parliamentary privilege.
Erskine May notes that this power to call for papers was frequently exercised until the middle of the nineteenth century but has rarely been used in more recent times. The government now more routinely publishes the sorts of papers previously sought through returns as command papers.
Where motions for a return are tabled, they are generally now unopposed. For example, such motions have been used to provide parliamentary privilege for public inquiry reports. Where the House authorities have been assured that the government intends to provide the paper sought, the motion is given precedence on the Order Paper: an example appeared on the Order Paper for 1 November 2017 in the name of the Home Secretary.
The power is of continuing importance since it is regularly delegated to select committees, enabling them to call for persons, papers and records.
A November 2017 blog post by Andrew Defty of the University of Lincoln explained why the motion refers to the monarch:
The reason why a motion for a return refers to the monarch arises from the fact that government departments are created by royal prerogative, and are, in effect, branches of the Privy Council. Hence, Secretaries of State become Privy Counsellors and departments are designated with the prefix ‘Her Majesty’s…’, although HM Treasury appears to be the only department for which this is now widely used. As a result, as the Speaker made clear, Labour’s request will be communicated to the Queen, ‘in the usual way’, although the response, of course, will come from the government.
Is a motion for a return binding?A motion tabled for debate by the Opposition on 1 November 2017 stated that:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the list of sectors analysed under the instruction of Her Majesty's Ministers, and referred to in the Answer of 26 June 2017 to Question 239, be laid before this House and that the impact assessments arising from those analyses be provided to the Committee on Exiting the European Union.
After the debate, Keir Starmer, then Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the UK, raised a point of order asking whether the motion was effective or binding and whether that meant a failure of the government to comply would be a contempt of the House. The Speaker responded:
…motions of this kind have traditionally been regarded as binding or effective. Consistent with that established pattern, I would expect the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household to present the Humble Address in the usual way.
I say what I do, as colleagues on both sides of the House and on both sides of the argument will recognise, on the strength of an understanding of advice received in relation to precedent grounded in “Erskine May”. When I am asked, as I think I was by the right hon. and learned gentleman, about contempt or breach of privilege, what I would say is that, if anybody wishes to make an accusation of a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House, it must be done in writing to the Speaker. If I receive such a representation in writing, I will consider it and apply my best endeavours, and take advice, in reaching a view and reporting it to the House.2
When asked by Sarah Wollaston MP what would be a “reasonable timeframe” for the government to respond, Mr Speaker stated that “one should reflect in a sober and considered fashion”, “but if the hon. Lady is asking me whether I envisage this being something that needs to be deliberated on over a period of several days, the answer is no”.3 The Speaker later stated that the government’s announcement that they would respond to motions passed on Opposition Days within 12 weeks was “in the specific context of earlier Opposition Day debates, the motions for which were not binding”.4
Footnotes