HL Deb 03 July 1975 vol 362 cc335-6
The Earl of ONSLOW

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider allowing Select Committees the discretion to grant costs to successful petitioners in opposed Private Bills, thus bringing them into line with planning inquiries and the courts.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, under the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865, a Select Committee on an opposed Private Bill may award costs to successful petitioners who have been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense by the conduct of the promoters. This principle is in line with that of planning inquiries.

The Earl of ONSLOW

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether the Government would consider changing this Act or introducing a Bill to amend it? In the past—and I speak from experience here—certain private citizens have opposed Bills promoted by local authorities who have vast financial resources behind them. These Bills have been opposed by worthy citizens who stand to gain nothing financially by opposing the Bills and they have done it purely from a sense of public duty. It seems wrong that not only have these people to be ratepayers in their own right, but that they should then have to collect extra money to pay their costs.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I believe this was a matter which your Lordships' House considered and some progress was made towards reducing costs for petitioners. The point made by the noble Earl could have wide ramifications not only in terms of Private Bills but also for public inquiries. While I cannot hold out any hope to the noble Earl, I am quite willing to consider the matter in which I think he was involved with some of the other amenity societies. The situation is difficult, but I will certainly have a look at it.

Lord WALLACE of COSLANY

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the full costly processes of Private Bill procedure urgently need revision, particularly as they relate to the burden on local authorities, and consequently ratepayers? This matter is really urgent.

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I could not possibly disagree, and only yesterday afternoon I saw a certain noble Lord who had proposals to make towards some amelioration.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

My Lords, is the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal aware that by implication, my noble friend Lord Onslow agrees that this particular Private Bill was reasonable in that the Surrey County Council should look for a county hall within their own boundaries and not within the boundaries of another council. Guildford was the natural place to have it. Is the noble Lord further aware that while my noble friend is fortunate in enjoying the position of High Steward of Guildford and thereby the honour of that position, he is doubly fortunate in that it is hereditary and that he does not depend on the vote of the borough council today?

The Earl of ONSLOW

My Lords, is the noble Lord further aware that I should never dream of allowing what I consider to be my public duty to be influenced by the snide remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford?

Lord SHEPHERD

My Lords, I suspect that there is something strange in the atmosphere of your Lordships' House this afternoon. I suggest we move to the next Question.