PROMOTION OF PRIVATE BILLS (Hansard, 16 December 1958)

THE EARL OF HOME
My Lords, this is the Motion which we postponed, at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, last week in order to adjust the wording to meet what we thought were legitimate points made by the noble Lord. I hope that in its new form this Resolution now covers the points made then, and that it will now be acceptable to both sides of the House. I beg to move.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having taken the original Motion back. I am interested to hear that he thought the reasons we gave for asking the Government to reconsider it were good reasons, because he did not tell us so at the time; he merely agreed to take them back. But obviously they were good reasons, because the Motion has been entirely re-cast (and for that we are very grateful indeed) and now much more nearly meets the point we put from these Benches last time. It does not quite meet the case, but I should be content to let the matter go if I could have an assurance that the Committee, when set up, will in fact consider the problem as we see it. I do not want to be difficult about forms of words, and I do not think it is a very satisfying process to discuss exact forms of words across the Floor of the House. What I have in mind, however, is this. For thirty-seven years it has been the practice for one authority to introduce in its Bills legislation on behalf of another authority, and I do not want the whole question to go into the melting-pot. I should like that position to be accepted, so that authorities will not suffer; in other words, that this question will not be the subject of consideration by the Joint Select Committee.
The reason this matter has arisen at all is that, whereas in the past most bodies have been reasonable in introducing into their own Bills proposals on behalf of another authority, suddenly, as I understand it, several authorities developed this practice to an unreasonable extent with the result that very heavy burdens were placed on the Select Committees—burdens which they found it difficult to carry. The wording of this Motion as it stands could raise the whole question of one authority introducing powers on behalf of another. I want that question to be regarded as one that has been settled as a result of thirty-seven years practice; the only issue should be the extent to 327 which it should be allowed, not the general principle. If I could have an assurance on that, and I hope that I can, I should not quarrel with these words and I would suggest that the House might accept them.

§ EARL WINTERTON
My Lords, I do not quite understand the noble Lord's point. Surely in a matter of this kind, which is of great importance, there can be no objection to the proposed Committee having wide powers. After all, it rests with another place and your Lordships' House whether or not their Report is accepted. Surely if we are going to examine the matter we should examine it thoroughly.

THE EARL OF HOME
My Lords, I have found it a little difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I am not sure that he is talking with the same voice as that with which the noble Lord, Lord Latham, was talking the other day. If I understood the noble Lord, Lord Latham, aright, he was pressing me for a form of words which would show whether this process was desirable, and I did not like that because I thought that after thirty years of practice it opened up too wide a field. But the words we have chosen would allow the Committee to say whether these powers should be exercised to the full extent, to no extent or to some point half-way, or to some other point in between. I think that, if the noble Lord lets these words go and the Joint Committee get to work, they will interpret these words in a sensible way in the light of the existing practice.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH
My Lords, the noble Earl the Leader of the House has been very kind about all this, but there are noble Lords in all parts of the House who are still anxious. Some local authorities have suffered individually in the past, in quite a small way, when applications for legislation through this sort of channel have been rejected by the Treasury or by some other machinery. We are most anxious that the general principle should be settled once and for all, as a result of setting up this Joint Committee. Am I right in assuming that the practice, in the case of a Joint Committee of both Houses, is that there is never a Minority Report. 328 Would it not be possible, on a matter of this widespread importance to all local authorities, to allow anybody who has a different view from the Majority Report to submit a Minority Report to be included in the Report of the Joint Committee.

THE EARL OF HOME
My Lords, I think it is the case that there have not in the past been Minority Reports. I should think that it is for the Committee themselves to decide, if there are dissenting members, how the dissent should be expressed.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this question? In the case of the last Bill, the Essex Bill, certain clauses were struck out. Would it have been competent for this House to overrule the decision of the Committee and demand that those clauses should be considered by the Whole House?

THE EARL OF HOME
My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, if he would help us on that.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR)
My Lords, the number of clauses struck out of the Essex Bill in this House was one, and the answer to the second part of the question is that it would be possible for the Whole House to reverse that decision by resolving that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
I thank the noble Lord very much.

§ LORD LATHAM
My Lords, without wishing to appear excessively pernickety, I must say that I think that the words of this reference to the Joint Committee are less than satisfactory. My own view is that the Committee ought to proceed on the basis that for thirty-seven years it has been the practice to allow local authorities to promote legislation conferring powers upon other local authorities. That is the basis of the whole question. It was the doubt as to whether that was proper which led the Lord Chairman of Committees to make representations to this House. The question, therefore, as the order of reference is drafted, is not what should be allowed; the Committee should proceed from the basis that one authority is allowed to seek powers 329 on behalf of other authorities, and the Committee should then see in what respect and to what extent that authority and that power, which, as I say, has been operated for thirty-seven years, should be restricted.
Your Lordships will see that the proposed Motion on the Paper starts off with the assumption that certain things are disallowed, and then the Committee has to consider to what extent they should be allowed. My submission is that for thirty-seven years things have been allowed, and it is only where they should be disallowed that the Committee should be concerned. In those circumstances, with every respect, I do not think that the terms of the order of reference on the Paper are really appropriate to the situation that whereas, until the commencement, of this year, local authorities had certain powers, it is now proposed to say they shall not have them.

§ LORD DERWENT
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down could he explain one point. I do not quite follow him, because this Motion says: That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to consider the extent … Surely it is not considering the propriety; it is the extent. That is what it says.

§ LORD LATHAM
My Lords, that is precisely the point that I was seeking to make—the extent to which the powers should be allowed. My submission is that it ought to be the extent to which the restrictions should be imposed, because until this year local authorities were without any restriction, other things being appropriate, as regards seeking powers for other authorities. That is essentially the point that I am making; the subject for inquiry should be not the degree of the powers allowed, but the extent of the powers disallowed. There is a very great difference. It is not a matter of semantics or of using phrases. In my submission, it is a most vital distinction.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, may I suggest that the wording of this Motion is precisely and exactly right and is what the House wishes? If my memory is correct, the problem arose over a Bill of the Kent County Council for which, 330 if one looked at each individual clause, admittedly, as the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, some precedent could be found. That for which there was no precedent was the wholesale nature of the way this power had been used. It was that which was questioned by both Houses of Parliament—

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
No; by the Chairmen.

§ LORD CONESFORD
I admit different views were expressed as to what should be done about it. The propriety of what the Kent County Council was doing was questioned. I am not saying there was no difference of opinion, but both Houses of Parliament—

§ VISCOUNT STANSGATE
That is where the noble Lord is wrong. It was not both Houses; it was both Chairmen.

§ LORD CONESFORD
I think both Houses. Certainly this House made it quite clear in debate that it agreed with the Lord Chairman of Committees that there was a problem as to how far this was proper.
It was urged in this House, and I think in another place, that the right way to resolve that problem and seek guidance, was to appoint a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to look into the whole question and to report. That is what it is now proposed to do by this Motion. I think that if those who have criticised the Motion had tried to draft any improvement of it they would almost certainly have found that the result of their suggested Amendment would have been to make the wording, even from their own point of view, less satisfactory than it is now. As my noble friend on these Benches has just pointed out, what the Committee are here asked to inquire into is the extent to which proposed Private Bill enactments which would alter the powers or duties of persons other than the promoter should be allowed. It does not suggest that they should be wholly disallowed; it says that there should be an inquiry as to the extent to which they should be allowed. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, would have preferred some such wording as "the extent to which they should be restricted." But the power of the Committee in either case would have been the same: they could have made 331 any recommendation they liked and, as my noble friend Lord Winterton has pointed out, it will be for Parliament to consider, in due course, what line it takes on the Report submitted by the Joint Select Committee. But I defy anybody to improve on the wording of the Motion as it stands, in so far as it defines the matter which everybody, I think, whatever his view on the merits, believes should be the subject of inquiry.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, as I said at the outset, I do not think it is very profitable to try to redraft across the Floor of the House a form of words. Speaking for myself, I should be most ready to accept the terms of the Motion coupled, if I may say this, with the statement of the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who has told us that the Committee will consider this matter in a spirit of common sense and in the light of the practice that has prevailed for a great many years. I am content to accept that, and the short discussion we have had in this House, and to agree to the Motion.