PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS (Hansard, 9 May 1967)

§ LORD MOLSON
My Lords, I realise that we have important debates this afternoon, and I am going, to confine my remarks on this Motion to as brief a speech as I can. The Lord Chairman has said that this Amendment goes a little way to meeting the points that were raised. Indeed it goes a very little way: this is, in tact, a hurried ad hoc measure designed to enable the Petitioners against the North Devon (Meldon Reservoir) Water Order to be heard. Your Lordships have heard from the Lord Chairman, and no doubt you will recall, the circumstances in which the amenity societies were refused locus standi to appear before the Joint Committee. When I drew the attention of the Government to the assurances that had been given by Mr. Herbert Morrison (as he then was) and Mr. Arthur Greenwood at the time of the passing of the Parliamentary Special Procedure Act 1945 they behaved more than fairly—I would say generously—in the matter, and withdrew the Order.
It is fairly clear that this hurried Amendment to the Standing, Orders, which I understand was agreed upon only in the middle of last week, is intended to deal with this particular case. In fact it does not necessarily deal even with this immediate case. I know that the Minister will not question the locus standi of the amenity societies, but there is nothing to prevent the North Devon Water Board from doing so. The Minister has no power to forbid them to do so, and when I asked the Department this morning 1309 whether they had received any assurance from the Board I was told that they had not. Indeed, they felt that it would be difficult to ask for an assurance until the Petitions had been laid. It therefore follows that if the North Devon Water Board question the locus standi of the Petitioners, the matter will go again to the two Chairmen, who will then be in this position: that either they will have to say that their previous decision was wrong, or we shall all be back in the same position that we were before.
Briefly I must invite your Lordships' attention to the much broader issues which this decision of the Chairmen has raised and which was very fully debated in your Lordships' House on April 4. Under Standing Orders as interpreted by the two Chairmen—and, what is of great importance, the Chairman of Ways and Means is also Chairman of the Court of Referees in another place—the amenity societies have no right to petition against proposals affecting landscape. I showed in the last debate that amenity societies have in fact petitioned without let or hindrance since 1910, and that has not been disputed by those who support the Chairmen's decision.
It is now argued that because in these cases Promoters of Private Bills have not objected to locus standi they will not do so in future, and that therefore the position is satisfactory. To that my answer is twofold. First, it is surely intolerable that a right to petition Parliament should depend, not upon the decision of Parliament or of the particular House concerned, but on the good will or negligence of the opponent. I should like to quote what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne in this matter. He said: It seems to me very wrong and anomalous that a right of being heard under the Standing Orders of either House—and the Standing Orders of the two Houses are the same in this respect—should depend, not on the decision of the House, or of anyone appointed by the House, but on the question whether or not the point is taken by the Promoters of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/4/67, col. 931.] When there is this uncertainty as to whether Petitioners will be granted a hearing before a Select Committee, it is obvious that they will be reluctant to incur the very heavy expenditure involved in preparing a case because they do not know whether there will be an opportunity of putting it forward.
1310 The second answer that I would make is that the reason why Promoters of Bills have never objected to the locus standi of amenity societies since 1910 is that it was the accepted doctrine of practitioners that the Promoters would not be able to object successfully. What has happened now is that Parliamentary agents and the Parliamentary Bar have been alerted to the view of the Chairman of Ways and Means that if they do object, amenity societies and many other interests also will be denied a hearing. Clearly, it will be their duty in the interests of their clients to take this technical point, and they invariably will. The doctrine extends beyond amenity societies. It will apply probably to the Yachting Association in a matter which has already arisen, and also to the Central Electricity Board. It is surely quite intolerable that the right of Petitioners to be heard should depend just upon the willingness of the parties on the other side not to object.
What will be the practical consequences of this? In the first place, in the case of Private Bills, those who are concerned to oppose them will do so on the Floor of the House by having a Second Reading debate upon it, instead of the matter being referred to a Select Committee upstairs and being heard properly in a judicial atmosphere. Secondly, in the case of Special Parliamentary Procedure Orders it will become customary for there to be Motions for annulment moved on the Floor of both Houses. This was exactly what the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 was designed to prevent.
I do not propose to ask your Lordships this afternoon to reject this Amendment, I have much in mind, as I have said, that there are important debates to come on, and I do not want to take up the time of the House. I recognise, with gratitude, that this is an attempt on the part of the Lord Chairman of Committees to give effect to the assurances which he gave in his speech on April 4. But I am bound to say that what he has been able to do so far is quite inadequate.
This involves a whole matter of principle in regard to which Petitioners are entitled to be heard by Parliament, and this Amendment does nothing to clarify the vague wording of the Standing Orders. Many of your Lordships will have heard the weighty speech from my noble and 1311 learned friend Lord Dilhorne, where in two important matters he differed completely from the interpretation put by the Chairmen and their legal advisers upon the Standing Orders that they are required to interpret.
I propose, therefore, to raise this matter at an early date after the Whitsuntide Recess, on a substantive Motion or otherwise, so that there may be an opportunity to probe the matter further. What I believe are involved are the following matters: first, the rights of the subject; secondly, efficient procedure for establishing those rights; thirdly, the need for harmony between the two Houses; and, fourthly, the need for Standing Orders to be so drafted that there is no doubt as to their meaning.

LORD SALTOUN
My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more that a few seconds. In all my experience of Private Bill Committees I have known a great many cases where the locus standi of Petitioners was challenged by the Promoters, and in every case it was your Lordships' Committee that decided whether or not the opponents had the locus standi that they wished to have. I admit that probably it would be more satisfactory to opponents if they knew earlier, but at least a body to which the matter has been committed by your Lordships' House has the duty of deciding the point.
Recently I was engaged in a Scottish Private Bill Committee where a Bill was objected to by the Petitioners and their locus standi was challenged on the ground that as they were not mentioned in the Bill they had no locus standi. My Committee accepted that view. I challenged it, and I asked whether Damocles had really no interest in the sword suspended over his head. But the matter was not of major importance because quite shortly it was going to be overlain by a Public Bill. So I did not press the matter. But it seems to me that my noble friend Lord Molson is exaggerating a little when he says that the matter is settled by somebody quite independent of your Lordships' House, because ultimately it is your Lordships' Committee which decides it.

EARL ST. ALDWYN
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl the Chairman 1312 of Committees would consider having some consultation with those who are most directly concerned with this matter. To the best of my knowledge there has not been any consultation, certainly not through the usual channels. Although one or two individuals may have been consulted, there has not been any general discussion, and it seems to me that there would be considerable advantage in having some private discussion before the Motion which Lord Molson is proposing to move is tabled.

§ THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
My Lords, I appreciate the point of the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn. I would point out to him that I take no cognisance of the usual channels, because all channels are to me equally usual. But if after the Recess he would like a consultation between all those who are interested in this matter, naturally I should be more than willing to take part. I will not reply to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, because I do not want to detain your Lordships who are waiting for the continuation of a debate on a most important public matter. I would only say that I am sorry that I cannot satisfy him completely, but I am glad that he thinks that I have gone a short way towards meeting him, and that he supports this Amendment. I can assure him that if, after the Recess, he wishes to discuss the matter again on a Motion, I and my right honourable friend the Chairman of Ways and Means will give the most careful consideration to what he and any other noble Lord may say on such an occasion.