HL Deb 22 March 1967 vol 281 cc745-51

2.58 p.m.

Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Fourth Report from the Committee.

The Committee's Report was as follows:

HYBRID SPECIAL ORDERS

The Committee considered certain procedural difficulties inherent in the provisions of Private Bill Standing Order 216 relating to hybrid Orders; particularly in respect of the passage through the House of Orders which are in force when made and which expire unless approved by both Houses within 28 days.

To expedite procedure in respect of "28 day" Orders the Committee recommend that the Petitioning time prescribed in the Standing Order (paragraph 4) should be abbreviated from 14 to 10 days except by leave of the Chairman of Committees.

The Committee also consider that procedure, in respect of all opposed hybrid Orders, could he expedited if the Special Orders Committee, when examining a Petition, were able to consider representations in writing from the Minister responsible for laying the Order and the petitioners; and that parties should only be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents by leave of the Committee.

The Committee therefore recommend the following two amendments be made to Standing Order No. 216:—

(1) At end of line 51 insert:— Provided that in its application to a Special Order whose continuance in operation is conditional on an affirmative resolution, the last preceding paragraph shall have effect as if for the word 'fourteenth' there were substituted the words tenth or, by special leave of the Chairman of Committees, fourteenth'.

(2) Line 92, leave out from "Order" to the end of line 95, and insert:— the Committee shall consider any representations made to them in writing by the petitioner and the Minister of the Crown responsible for laying the Order before Parliament and may allow the petitioner and the Minister to appear before them in person or by their Counsel or Agents.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

My Lords, in asking your Lordships to approve this Report I should like briefly to explain the reasons for, and the effect of, the two proposed Amendments to our Standing Orders. The Procedure Com- mittee at their last meeting considered various difficulties which have arisen, and which are likely to continue to arise, in applying the provisions relating to hybridity of Private Business Standing Order 216 to the passage of Special Orders through this House. They considered first the special difficulties which arise in respect of Orders which are in force when made and which expire unless approved by both Houses within 28 days. The main difficulty here is simply that 28 days is not long enough to allow full compliance with the provisions of Standing Order 216 if a Petition is deposited and a Select Committee is set up.

Your Lordships may remember the recent case of the Solus Petrol Order which the Government withdrew and repaid, because otherwise the original Order would have expired before the Select Committee had considered it and reported to the House. To expedite our procedure in respect of 28-day Orders the Committee recommend the first Amendment set out in their present Report. The effect of this Amendment will be to shorten the petitioning time from 14 to 10 days, unless in exceptional circumstances the Chairman of Committees gives leave for a Petition to be deposited within 14 days. It will be appreciated that this is a small saving of time. On the other hand, it might make all the difference in getting an Order through the House within the prescribed time limit. The Committee are confident that any party affected by the provisions of the Order will be well aware of the circumstances and should not be in any way prejudiced by the shortening of the petitioning period.

The second Amendment in the Report provides for the Special Orders Committee, when examining a Petition, to consider representations in writing from the parties concerned, and removes the existing right of parties under the Standing Order to be heard by themselves, their counsel or agent. It is hoped that this Amendment, which will enable the Special Orders Committee to meet as soon as written representations have been received, will effect a further saving in time. The Committee felt that the second Amendment should apply to all hybrid Orders and not only to 28-day Orders, as it would be anomalous to give petitioners against other Orders the right to appear by counsel, while only allowing petitioners against 28-day Orders the right to appear by leave of the Committee.

I should like to emphasise that both alterations in our procedure can be reviewed if they are found in practice not to effect a worthwhile saving of time. The Committee propose these Amendments as an interim measure, pending a general review of procedure in respect of hybrid Orders. My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.

Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

3.2 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am sure the Whole House will be grateful to the Lord Chairman for having explained these Amendments to the House. I think the Whole House will also agree that it is a very courageous and ingenious attempt to get over what is a real difficulty in regard to these Orders which have to be considered in only 28 days. The kind of Order which involves the possibility of difficulty in carrying out the procedure within the time limit of 28 days is one regarding which there has been no departmental or local inquiry after the Order has been drafted and before it is laid before Parliament; for example, Orders made under the Monopolies and Mergers Act. Such Orders are liable to lay on individual persons or companies obligations or restrictions not laid upon persons or companies in general. In other words, they are of a discriminatory character. It is therefore of the utmost importance for Parliament to ensure, as it is entitled to do, that the discrimination is both fair in itself and entirely necessary in the public interest. There should be no question of the Legislature acting as a rubber stamp for the Executive in these matters. That is why I personally attach considerable constitutional importance to these Amendments.

May I ask the Chairman of Committees how he expects that the Special Orders Committee will in fact operate the procedure if the Report is agreed to? At present, as I understand it, every Special Order stands referred automatically to the Special Orders Committee, and that remains. I believe I am right in thinking that the Government Department concerned invariably provides for the Committee a note or a memorandum explaining the background of the Order and its effect. Any Petition received by the Committee against the Order will obviously state the reason for objecting to the Order. If these are all the documents that the Committee have to consider, then the Committee may well be able to report without calling on the petitioner or the Minister to appear in person, or by their counsel or agents.

I conceive that the Committee's function is to recommend where there is aprima facie case to be considered by a Select Committee. If this is so, if these are all the documents, there will be a very considerable saving in time, especially since it may well be that in such cases the petitioners will be able to present their Petition some days before the new normal period of 10 days within which it must be presented has elapsed. The reason for this is that the Department will normally have consulted the parties affected, and they may know in advance the purport of the Order, or at least have a pretty good idea of it. In other cases—cases which the Chairman of Committees did not mention—where the purpose of the Order might be defeated if the parties affected were given an inkling of its content in advance, it might be necessary for the Committee to allow them the full 14 days as at present. Therefore, it is clearly wise to keep as well the full 14 days as a possibility.

The difficulty which I find in the second Amendment is in the reference to representations. I can see that the Minister might want to submit representations objecting to the facts as stated in the Petition. If so, will the petitioners be served with a copy of the Minister's representations, and be given the opportunity to submit counter-representations? It seems to me only right and fair that they should. But all of this would take time, with an interval between each set of representations, and it would probably leave inadequate time for a Select Committee to be set up and for them to consider the Petition and report to your Lordships' House. It seems to follow that, unless the Special Orders Committee are able to report on the Order in the light of the Minister's explanatory memorandum and of the Petition alone, it would be quicker for them to hear the Parties than to proceed by way of written representations and counter representations.

Here I would ask: is it expected that the parties will be ready to appear, either in person or through counsel, at short notice after the consideration of the initial documents? I hope that the Minister would not wish to delay matters by submitting written representations, but would allow the Special Orders Committee to make up their mind upon the Order, as explained by the Minister and the Petition and report whether in their opinion there ought to be a further inquiry. If that is done, then there should be enough time, though not much more than enough, for a Select Committee in the House to consider the matter. If, on the other hand, the Minister prolongs the proceedings of the Special Orders Committee by making representations in writing, he will have only himself to blame if the Order lapses at the expiry of 28 days before the House has had time to consider the Report of the Select Committee.

I feel constrained to ask the Chairman of Committees for an assurance that, if any representations are submitted to the Committee by the Minister upon the Petition, they will be made available to the petitioners, and that the petitioners will be given the right to reply to them either by written or by oral representations. Given this assurance, in my view the House could safely accept the Report, as the noble Earl described it, as an interim solution to a difficult problem.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

My Lords, I shall certainly do my best to reply to the noble Lord's questions, and I should like to start by saying that I entirely agree—and I am sure that members of the Procedure Committee would also agree—with his view that the House attaches a very great deal of importance to its responsibility for protecting private rights and interests. The noble Lord asked me first of all how it is envisaged that this new procedure of written representations will work. I think it will work as follows. First of all, as soon as written representations have been received by the Committee, both from the petitioner and from the Government Department concerned, the Committee will meet to consider whether or not a further inquiry is required by a Select Committee. If it decided that a further inquiry was required by a Select Committee, then a Select Committee would be appointed and would report to your Lordships on the Special Order. The saving of time there would be that the Special Orders Committee would meet as soon as the written representations had been received, instead of having to wait, as they have done hitherto, until the expiry of the 14-day petitioning period. The noble Lord also asked—

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? He is using the word "representations" now to mean the original documents, as opposed to subsequent representations. Is this what the word "representations" was intended to mean? As I understand it, he is using it to refer to the Order and the explanatory note of the Order and the Petition itself, which incorporates, of course, the reasons for the Petition. Is this what he is meaning by "representations" in this sense?

3.10 p.m.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for raising that point because I should like to make this matter as clear as possible, both to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords who may be interested. I was not using the word "representations" in that restricted sense. I was using the word "representations" qualified by the epithet "written"—that is, "written representations"—to include all the written representations by both parties. That would include, first of all, the exchange of representations between the petitioner and the Government Department concerned, and then the answer, if the petitioner wishes to make one, to the representations of the Government Department on the petition. That is the stage at which the Special Orders Committee would meet to consider all the written representations that had been received, and to decide whether or not a Select Committee should be appointed.

I think this answers the noble Lord's question as to whether or not the petitioner would receive a copy of the Department's written representation on the Petition, and would have the opportunity to submit an answer to these representations. The answer to that question is, of course, Yes. The petitioner would have an opportunity to make any answer in writing that he wished to make on the objections of the Government Department to his Petition.

I am not certain that I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asked, because I think what he wanted was an assurance about both oral and written representations. The object of this Amendment is to avoid the present necessity for oral statements by the parties represented by counsel. If this Amendment is carried, there will be oral statements by the parties represented by counsel only if the Committee wish to have them; that is to say, if, having considered the written statements, the Committee are unable, without a further oral statement from the parties, to decide the question as to whether or not a Select Committee should be appointed. I should like to emphasise that this proposed procedure is experimental and that its object is to save time. We shall try it out; but, of course, if it proves that there is no worthwhile saving of time, the position will then be reviewed by the Committee.

On Question, Motion agreed to.